Current ridicule

[CANGAS]

And yet over that same period of time SP, and MP fuel injection in automobiles became common as did direct injection in Diesel engines.  So if Shell's intent was to prevent fuel efficiency improvements, why didn't they block fuel injection developments?  Have you considered that a smart businessperson tries to identify trends and get ahead of those trends in a profitable way?

Uhhhh......direct injection in Diesel engines predates the era you cite. Predates by about a century.


CANGAS 50

[CANGAS]

I suggest that you reread what I wrote.  Businesses buy into promising technologies in their field all the time.  Do you think that PriceLine just bought Open Table so that they can shelve it?  Buying into a technology that if successful would cut into a company's core business is called hedging.  It is rather routine.  It does not have to be the least bit sinister.  You have yet to show that Shell did anything untoward.  You need to show where they bought up technology rights and then kept them from the market.  So far, all you have is them buying some technology rights.  You need to come up with the other half.

Buying into a technology that if successful would cut into a company's core business is called hedging.  It is rather routine.

LOL! 20 years ago today (Say! That would make a catchy song lyric. Someday somebody will use it and teach the band to play.) I invented a novel improvement to intake and exhaust methodology for piston engines. Midway through making a patent search in the Patent Deposit Library in the basement of LSU Library I ran through some numbers to get a good guess about how much the invention would be worth. I went through an analysis of how much the market would reasonably bear based on the worldwide annual production of very roughly 50 million piston engine vehicles per year. My business plan was to sell licenses to use my patent to car manufacturers and such. My analysis plan was to determine the dollar amount per car that the market would bear. So this whole subject is very familiar to me.

If good  MarkE would make even a rough analysis PRIOR to make statements half-cocked, he would realize that the patent license royalty income GAINED would be a minor fraction of the amount of oil consumption revenue LOST as a result of switching to a different technology which would reduce oil consumption down to a 1/4 or thereabout.

The Internal Combustion Engine market for oil sales would be 75% GONE. Patent license royalty income would not even be in the same ballpark (or the same town) for making up the loss.

Hedge, my DONKEY!   



CANGAS 51

[minnie]

   For the car/light commercial direct injection has only become a reality
in the last 20 years.
    I don't believe that manufacturers of vehicles could make anything like
a 75% improvement in economy. They even consider electric power steering
to try and find an extra mpg.
                                  John.

[CuriousChris]

i've got to laugh at myself for a minute considering how much of a hard time i was giving you in some message threads and stop now to thank you for validating what i was saying about shell oil.  at least we can agree on that.   thank you.

as far as why fuel injectors and some other fuel saving innovations moved into production i clearly recall the government making requirements back about that time that the car manufacturers had to start making cars with higher mpg.   so i would guess they went with some of the tech cars now have but which could be controlled easily by computer to limit just how much better it could get.  or maybe the limit of how much better mpg it can achieve is inherent in the design.   of course the goals they were told to achieve by certain dates or years have largely been forgotten.  look at what happend to mpg ratings when suv's came about. 

i said i was done with this thread but i had to thank curious chris.   does anyone really think big oil does not have an interest in keeping mpg low.  say aye loudly if you think they have no interest in keeping mpg low.

   crickets chriping

     

I absolutely agree big oil and big pharma and big whatever operate in their own interests. They also collude to keep prices up.

These are known facts protected by donations to various politicians around the world. an example was the recent sudden dropping of patent reform in the US. While it cannot be proven its almost sure  Senator Reid had Leahy drop it because of pressure from lobbyists. The money is on big pharma for that one.

But as we say at work. Never attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence or greed.


Also my comments about the big gap in time was in reference to my memory. My recollection is that many of the patents I looked at were assigned to Shell Canada which is to say they bought them. I also only did a quick search based on one search term. not the many many hours I spent in the patent office.

Also You may recall I said I spent my time in the Melbourne patent office. A search of google while quick and dirty will not produce the same results. It is most probable that the same patents owned by Shell Oil US may well have been assigned to Shell oil Canada for international patents

The point of my producing a simple google search was to provide proof that

1. Shell owns a lot of patents in relation to fuel economy
2. A good researcher provides references for claims he makes (even if quick and dirty google searches)
3. To make a claim its an urban myth without checking your facts is as bad as the believers making false claims and NOT providing evidence to support those claims.

So while I suggest you keep up the good fight Mark E I suggest you also subscribe to those principals you claim to support.

P.S. I tried to search Australia's PO but was disgusted with its uselessness in under a few minutes. Perhaps I should have stuck it out rather than referring to the google search as it would back my claims better. But maybe not, Australia's PO online search is the worst I have ever used.

[MarkE]

I absolutely agree big oil and big pharma and big whatever operate in their own interests. They also collude to keep prices up.

These are known facts protected by donations to various politicians around the world. an example was the recent sudden dropping of patent reform in the US. While it cannot be proven its almost sure  Senator Reid had Leahy drop it because of pressure from lobbyists. The money is on big pharma for that one.

But as we say at work. Never attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence or greed.


Also my comments about the big gap in time was in reference to my memory. My recollection is that many of the patents I looked at were assigned to Shell Canada which is to say they bought them. I also only did a quick search based on one search term. not the many many hours I spent in the patent office.

Also You may recall I said I spent my time in the Melbourne patent office. A search of google while quick and dirty will not produce the same results. It is most probable that the same patents owned by Shell Oil US may well have been assigned to Shell oil Canada for international patents

The point of my producing a simple google search was to provide proof that

1. Shell owns a lot of patents in relation to fuel economy
2. A good researcher provides references for claims he makes (even if quick and dirty google searches)
3. To make a claim its an urban myth without checking your facts is as bad as the believers making false claims and NOT providing evidence to support those claims.

So while I suggest you keep up the good fight Mark E I suggest you also subscribe to those principals you claim to support.

P.S. I tried to search Australia's PO but was disgusted with its uselessness in under a few minutes. Perhaps I should have stuck it out rather than referring to the google search as it would back my claims better. But maybe not, Australia's PO online search is the worst I have ever used.

Chris, Steel, it is no secret that oil companies seek the highest profits they can get.  It is also no secret that they exercise what they can to pump up those profits.  Bush's wars and $6 trillion in US treasury, and over 100,000 maimed and 7,000 dead US soldiers to fight them is a national tragedy.  People should be jailed for that treason.  But the specific charge of Shell trying to prevent fuel economy improvements by buying up patents and somehow preventing them from being practiced is missing a key component:  Evidence showing that Shell prevented the patents from being practiced.