Current ridicule

[MarkE]

WOW! You're good, Marky!

But, you have tipped your hand. 


CANGAS 47

Yes, there must be some terrible black conspiracy to rely on facts and logic.

[CANGAS]

Yes, there must be some terrible black conspiracy to rely on facts and logic.

Not at all. But, it raises a flag when "facts and logic" are abused to throw a Red Herring on the trail and apparently attempt to divert and derail the discussion.

It is a perfectly valid question "why would Shell buy a patent that would supposedly greatly nreduce oil consumption?".

You have attempted to divert us away. You taunt us to prove why Shell should not want the patent.

The IMPORTANT question is ....WHY DID SHELL WANT THE PATENT?

What is your guess?



CANGAS 48

[CuriousChris]

i was hoping someone would ask that.   it was reported in the media that shell offered to buy his patent.  shell oil is not a car manufacturer so it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they would want to buy the patent.   keeps the car makers from being able to use it.   think shell doesn't buy such patents?   here is just one such vaporizer patent shell bought I found in a 2 minute search   pat #  3935849

I can step in here with a personal account.

The Shell story is NOT an urban myth. It is a fact I can personally testify to after hundreds of hours of research.

In the early eighties I was doing a lot of research into fuel atomisation as part of my developing what I called Viper, "Vapour Injection Power and Economy Regulator". In those days long before the internet you had to spend many hours reading patents and summaries in the actual Patent office. I became very familiar with Melbourne's office.

I looked at heat vapourisation. Sound vapourisation using crystals, atomisation using pressure. different types of combustion chambers designed to vapourise the fuel just prior to ignition. In short I studied dozens if not hundreds of patents.

Without fail 95% of the patents I studied were attributed to Shell Oil of Canada. I surmised at the time that the Canadian office was in charge of buying up EVERY SINGLE fuel saving patent it could get its hands on.

Jokingly I considered patenting devices purely so that Shell would buy them. Over thirty years later I truly wish I had done that. perhaps I would be wealthy now.

But that's history....

[MarkE]

Not at all. But, it raises a flag when "facts and logic" are abused to throw a Red Herring on the trail and apparently attempt to divert and derail the discussion.

It is a perfectly valid question "why would Shell buy a patent that would supposedly greatly nreduce oil consumption?".

You have attempted to divert us away. You taunt us to prove why Shell should not want the patent.

The IMPORTANT question is ....WHY DID SHELL WANT THE PATENT?

Conspiracy theory thinking is fun.  To the conspiracy theorist it doesn't matter what someone actually did or did not do.  All that matters is that the conspiracy theorist can concoct a believe in their own preconceived ideas of what someone might have wanted to do.

If Ogle's patent had commercial value then someone should have at least attempted to practice it.  Where is there any evidence that anyone tried?

Ogle dying did nothing to unpublish his patent application.  Anyone who found what it disclosed to be valuable was free to seek a license or full assignment.  Where is there any evidence that anyone tried after he died?

If Shell bought up patents for the purpose of shelving them, where is any record of them litigating against someone who attempted to practice one or more patents that Shell supposedly locked up?  What happened after the patents expired?

[MarkE]

I can step in here with a personal account.

The Shell story is NOT an urban myth. It is a fact I can personally testify to after hundreds of hours of research.

In the early eighties I was doing a lot of research into fuel atomisation as part of my developing what I called Viper, "Vapour Injection Power and Economy Regulator". In those days long before the internet you had to spend many hours reading patents and summaries in the actual Patent office. I became very familiar with Melbourne's office.

I looked at heat vapourisation. Sound vapourisation using crystals, atomisation using pressure. different types of combustion chambers designed to vapourise the fuel just prior to ignition. In short I studied dozens if not hundreds of patents.

Without fail 95% of the patents I studied were attributed to Shell Oil of Canada. I surmised at the time that the Canadian office was in charge of buying up EVERY SINGLE fuel saving patent it could get its hands on.

Jokingly I considered patenting devices purely so that Shell would buy them. Over thirty years later I truly wish I had done that. perhaps I would be wealthy now.

But that's history....

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?