Hybrids

[Alex Kowalski]

E. Roy Wendell IV wrote:

 >So you have to wonder, given that a corporation's purpose is to make
>as much money as possible, why they wouldn't hold on to alternative
>energy technologies as a hedge but stop their widespread use so that
>they can continue to accumulate massive profits off their core
>business. By law, that's exactly what they have to do or face a
>shareholder lawsuit.

This is the last post I'll do on the batteries issue since it's getting a
little long in the tooth.
In the article I linked to in my first post it was noted both that the
international court of arbitration didn't buy the argument that Panasonic
had meaningfully improved on the electrochemical patents held by
Ovonics/Cobasys, and that one of the results would be to strengthen American
competitiveness in this area.  I think it's very important that American
companies defend their patents aggressively, and I'm glad they prevailed in
this case.  Brett and others may see that as "STRANGLING" but I view it as a
completely appropriate reaction by an American company to maintain their
competitive advantage and defend their intellectual property.