BP to Build Five US Windfarms

Well, there goes the "If it wasn't for the oil companies conspiring to keep these things off the market" theories!

Clearly, obtaining Planning Permission is easier there...

Hi Greg G. You are totally wrong. I and a bunch of other people were developing alternative energy solution way back in 1976, but we were given the oppertunity by a major oil company to sell them our patents. We argued between us over this proposal and eventually the majority accepted their proposal, I and a friend didn't. I know where you are comming from about what you said, but I am was born stubbern, I saw what was comming. The oil companies knew that sooner or later that there would be problems with oil supplies or even that one day oil would run out. So they did the sensible thing, they invested in patents for alternative energy. I do not regret my actions as I have kept my integrity intact.

Hi Scapolie:

I am not here to defend oil companies, but isn't that what they are supposed to do? (invest in potential energy technologies, since they are at their root energy companies).

I have no doubt that companies, be they corporations, partnerships or solely owned, will at times, in their own perceived interest buy up something that may compete with them. Sometimes they use it, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're smart, sometimes they're stupid. I've seen it all, including illegalities, defrauding stockholders ... buying a competing company only to shut it down, you name it. So I'm not here in their behalf, or any body's behalf.

What I am opposed to is the notion that there is some "big" conspiracy out there that kept the "100 mile per gallon carburetor", "pill in a gas tank full of water", "miracle cure for cancer" or whatever from ever coming to fruition. That's not to say that there aren't a variety of factors at work that can prevent or discourage a worthwhile thing from coming on the market, but that doesn't constitute a purposeful conspiracy. That's all I'm trying to say.

In your case the oil company seems either innocent or even praiseworthy. I don't see from anything you said that integrity was involved, unless you felt the patents were really valuable to society or it was against your principles to "sell out" to an evil corporation.

I have no idea of the potential value of your patents, or the dynamics of you "and a bunch of other people". Why didn't your associates want to develop the patents? Did the "major oil company" use them? With all due respect, most patents never see the light of day in the form of an executed technology or product.

Are you named on any of the patents? If you were, they couldn't have been sold without your permission.

Send us the patent numbers, or just a name on them, so we can look them up. Buying patents doesn't "remove" them in any way, and the people who were responsible for the design or work that led to the application are still listed on the patent, since that is a separate issue from ownership of the rights. It would be of interest to a great many of us to read the abstracts, since there are a great deal of postings on alternative energy sources and technologies, even though it was 30 years ago.

You didn't provide any details, and I'm assuming your story is true, but I have heard so many similar ones that upon the most preliminary of checking proved to be gross distortions or plain false. Not about the events necessarily, but rather the attributed reasons and blame.

Me, I would have likely taken the money and cried all the way to the bank, 'cause it wouldn't have changed the outcome. On the other hand if I sincerely felt that society was being "hurt" then I would have held out like you did, so all the more reason for you to share the patent info with us.

Regards,

Greg

Hi Greg G. I agree with what you have just said, and my reasons for not selling were twofold. First, I could see the long term profits if we developed it further, and second, I did not want a large oil company to get even richer. I did not sign our developement away to these people for a quick buck like my other partners who couldn't wait, so I agreed with them that they pay me out.

Wait a minute. What's the difference between allowing your partners to buy you out, knowing what they were planning to do, and going along with their plan? Not knowing how your partnership was structured, what would have been the effect if you simply refused to be bought out by your partners? Could they have overridden your vote and sold out anyway?

If you really stuck to your principles, then, either way, you should have donated the money to a cause (perhaps like Greenpeace or some alternative energy development consortium) that you knew would continue to work towards the same goal as your original plan, to reduce pollution or lessen the impact of dependence on fossil fuels.

"most patents never see the light of day in the form of an executed technology or product."

I don't know if "most" is correct or not, but a good many do not for various reasons:

1. Technology may progress so fast that the technology involved in the patent is bypassed by leapfrogging ahead from a prior technology.

2. Competitors find a way to "work around" the patent, and provide a better or more cost effective product using alternative, even already proven technologies.

3. Technology used in the patent may be way ahead of production capabilities to produce the product on a marketable scale at a sellable price.

4. Changes in world markets and shifts in economies and technologies make the patent worthless or obsolete. Who wants to manufacture a new, improved buggy whip when horseless carriages are rapidly replacing horsedrawn ones? One could invent a better floppy disc drive, but but with CD-RW and DVD-RAM costs plummeting, as well as advancing hard drive and flash memory technologies, who would want to produce or buy it?

5. The patent process is very long and expensive. By the time patents are actually granted, the owner may have run out of funds, died, or just plain lost motivation to do anything with them.

6. Conversely, once a patent is granted, the clock starts ticking, and companies have a limited time to perfect the product, build plants and acquire equipment for manufacturing, set up channels of distribution, sell the product, and make a significant profit over its entire lifecycle, enough to cover all development work during the invention and patenting process as well as current costs and provide a return on investment, before patent protection runs out and competitors start producing clones at half the price or less! In the US and many other countries, patents are good for only 20 years, from the earliest filing date! And they are not generally renewable or extendable, unless extraordinary governmental delays can be proven in court. Design patents, which cover decorative, or non-functional design (which could include a material change) are even shorter, only 14 years.

7. Also, there is nothing in patent law that says that an invention must be desirable, only that it should work as described. If the invention were too costly to manufacture, or there existed no ready market, or it was deemed unmarketable even by attempting to create a market for it, then manufacturers would shy away from putting any such invention into production. Even if an inventor was to take on production himself, he could soon find his warehouse full of unsold product and his company in bankruptcy court. This is often the case wherre the hubris of the inventor blinds him from the reality of the marketplace.

The power company here wants to charge a premium for wind-generated electricity as well as electricity generated from other non-traditional sources (methane from landfills etc). We're already paying exorbitant rates to cover capital cost of nuclear plant construction. Sorry Excelon. A kwh is a kwh is a kwh.

DUH!

If it cost them more to generate it from "nontraditional sources" than the "traditional" ones, just who do you think is going to pay for it?

That is exactly why, I, like you, am opposed to an offshore windfarm in my neck of the woods. I am in favor of Windfarms, but I'm paying $.20/KWh now, and quite simply, to be in favor of another premium on top of that would be extreme self-flagellation to say the least.

We are so smart here, we're paying for a nuclear plant that was fully completed, fueled and ready to run but was then dismantled without ever going on the grid (Shoreham Nuclear Plant). The biggest joke though is that you are paying for part of it too, due to the huge federal tax deduction that was granted:

http://www.fortfreedom.org/p15.htm

Without regard to treacherous practices of large business concerns be they real or perceived we still must realize that our dependance on fossil fuels at rates we consider reasonable is a fantasy. You are correct Greg G. Duh. Does higher pricing for alternative sources of energy become more appealing as crude approaches 100.00 / barrel? I'm for anyone willing to bear the upfront financial commitment to a more diversified, secure energy future be it BP or McDonalds.