davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/21/85)
I've always thought that the ideas about oil companies (or any other business)
buying up or otherwise hiding ideas or patents which are so potent as to
revolutionize (and thus undermine) their field of activity is self-contradict-
ory.
The obvious reason is that if those ideas or patents are so potent, then
billions of dollars could be had by exploiting them, *not* hiding them!
Instead of scenario A:
Charles - "Gee Bob, this new car design could possibly get
120 Miles to the Gallon!"
Bob - "OH NO! That would ruin my stock options. We better
get the leagal beagles on this right away to cover
it up!"
I propose scenario B would really happen:
Charles - "Wow! Bob! This new car just might possibly get
120 Miles to the Gallon!!!!!!!"
Bob - "My God, Charles!!! Lets get the company to sell
this to Ford or GM!!! It must be worth BILLIONS
of dollars to them!!!! And our company will
MAKE A MINT!!!!!
or Bob - "My God, Charles!!! Even if it takes two years,
by the time our tire company starts producing
cars we'll MOP UP THE WORD CAR MAKET AND BE
BILLIONARES!!!!!!!"
In other words, it seems to me that potent ideas are just ripe for picking up
gobs of many any way you look at it, EXCEPT FOR *NOT* USING THEM and gambling
on not LOSING money instead.
Is there something I'm missing?
Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davetdoug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (03/22/85)
Gee, I'd thought this was a series of humorous notes, but since it seems to have turned serious... > I've always thought that the ideas about oil companies (or any other business) > buying up or otherwise hiding ideas or patents which are so potent as to > revolutionize (and thus undermine) their field of activity is self-contradict- > ory. > > The obvious reason is that if those ideas or patents are so potent, then > billions of dollars could be had by exploiting them, *not* hiding them! Well, somewhat. First off, it's highly unlikely to happen on anything patented, since the day the patent expires (which is earlier for ideas which weren't put into production), everybody and his brother would jump on the scheme, having had the term of the patent to verify that it really works and to refine the concept. While I don't believe that the big companies are hiding major break- throughs, there are certainly reasons that they would want to hide them, rather than make a profit. Consider that IBM purposely put an unusable keyboard on the PCjr, even though they had lots of usuable ones. A big company often feels that it has to protect its existing products. Suppose that there really was a "120 mpg car", and GM has control of the rights. They would almost certainly sit on it, because there aren't enough automotive engineers to redesign all of the models in GM's lineup in a short period of time. If they introduce a few models with 120 mpg, the sales of their other models will collapse instantaneously, as customers decide to keep their old clunkers until they can get one of the new marvels. Sure, Ford, Chrysler, AMC, Toyota, etc would all be put out of business. But so would GM. A Pyrrhic victory. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (03/22/85)
From davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > I've always thought that the ideas about oil companies (or any other business) > buying up or otherwise hiding ideas or patents which are so potent as to > revolutionize (and thus undermine) their field of activity is self-contradict- > ory. > > The obvious reason is that if those ideas or patents are so potent, then > billions of dollars could be had by exploiting them, *not* hiding them! I agree entirely. And to add to your scenarios: Irving: "Wow, Bill, this car will get 120mpg!" Bill: "Oh, no! We'd better supress it!" Irving: "But we could make millions at it..." Bill: "But if we supress it, we can keep making millions the way we are already!" Irving: "Yeah, until somebody else invents it, then we go broke." Bill: "EEEK!! You're right! Where'd I put that patent attorney?" -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (03/23/85)
>From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) >Newsgroups: net.misc,net.physics >Subject: Re: perpet motion - oil companies hiding plans is self-contradictory >Message-ID: <369@oakhill.UUCP> > >I've always thought that the ideas about oil companies (or any other business) >buying up or otherwise hiding ideas or patents which are so potent as to >revolutionize (and thus undermine) their field of activity is self-contradict- >ory. > >The obvious reason is that if those ideas or patents are so potent, then >billions of dollars could be had by exploiting them, *not* hiding them! . . . >Is there something I'm missing? Yes, the fact that all of these big businesses are economically geared to be concerned only with short-term profits. They can't see past the next quarter's bottom line and can't justify to their stockholders taking a loss for a year or two even if it means eventual huge profits. Tooling up to use an entirely new technology is horrendously expensive. That's why they'd rather suppress it. It's much easier to continue in the old, less efficient ways. Note: I'm not saying I believe in perpetual motion or gasoline pills, but the above principle does hold in real life situations. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
lindley@ut-ngp.UUCP (John L. Templer) (03/24/85)
> >From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) > >Message-ID: <369@oakhill.UUCP> > > > >I've always thought that the ideas about oil companies buying up or > >otherwise hiding ideas or patents which are so potent as to > >revolutionize (and thus undermine) their field of activity is > >self-contradictory. . . . Is there something I'm missing? > From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) > Message-ID: <295@ttidcc.UUCP> > > Yes, the fact that all of these big businesses are economically > geared to be concerned only with short-term profits. They can't > see past the next quarter's bottom line and can't justify to their > stockholders taking a loss for a year or two even if it means > eventual huge profits. Along the same lines, there was an article in the newspaper today (from UPI) about what oil companies are doing about their plight due to the current oil glut. They are dropping all their holdings in other industries outside of the oil business, selling or writing off all those services they got into as a means of diversifying. In other words, they are trying to solve their problems with more of the same type of actions which got them into this mess in the first place. -- John L. Templer University of Texas at Austin {allegra,gatech,seismo!ut-sally,vortex}!ut-ngp!lindley "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."