Re the solid catalyst that was presumedly developed at Idaho National Energy Lab about three years ago. How much info was divulged at the time and was any attempt ever made to patent the technology? Patent laws change, but the last time I looked at it, after a public disclosure, the inventor has one year to initiate a patent application. If after a year has elapsed and no attempt is made to patent it, the technology everts to the public domain. One of the issues a government contractor lab would want to avoid would be to avoid the appearance of preferential treatment. If the technology were of critical importance in an industry, such as it is alleged is the case here, one way to avoid that appearance of preferential treatment would be to let the technology revert into the public domain. Alternatively, if the technology were patented, and the technology was not of any particular value to an Agency mission program, why risk the charge of preferential treatment by, say, allowing one of the "big eight" to buy and bury it? Then, in addition, there are some misguided government people who think the best way to put the technology to the greatest use is to allow anyone to use and profit from it. Methinks they probably know better, but this position suits their purpose, which, as indicated, is to avoid being put in a position of being accused of preferential treatment. I suggest do a search to determine whether the invention has been sufficiently disclosed, followed by an elapsed time of at least one year, to cause the invention to revert to the public domain. Since you have the name of the inventors, do a literature search to see what turns up. The procedure used to be, when I worked at a national lab as a development engineer, to submit the disclosure to the government contractor patent ofifice, to see whether the government wanted to patent the idea. If it wasn't strictly mission related, chances are the government wasn't interested. Then, if sufficiently interested, the inventor had to option of requesting that he be allowed to patent same as in individual. Given the urge to publish, the invention usually had been disclosed in the open literature early in the process. The government then had a choice: allow the individual to patent, or allow the patent to revert into the publc domain, by delaying any decision until 12 months after the disclosure. I remember one case, the "Higgins Ion Exchange Column," where the government allowed Higgins to patent, which he did. Shortly thereafter he left the employ of the government contractor and developed a profitable business marketing his exchange column. If this "solid catalyst" item is as important as it appears to be, the contractor lab could be faced with losing a good man, as in the case of Higgins, if they allow the inventor to patent the solid catalyst invention. I suggest, get in touch with the inventor, offer him a joint venture, and support him in whatever way possible. The invention needs to be patented, because whatever belongs to everyone really belongs to noone. Unless a proprietary position can be developed, I believe there would be little possibility to develop the necessary funding to get this technology into the marketplace. But, given the state of the art that is being developed here, together, with a proprietary position with this patent -- ;who knows what could result? .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Tiny Wireless Camera under $80! Order Now! FREE VCR Commander! Click Here - Only 1 Day Left! http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
