How high do these companies want oil prices to go before they decide to get more than 13? Fedex has been testing theirs since 2004 and still only have 93 out of perhaps thousands of trucks?

I am hoping that Chevron sells their part of Cobasys to someone that will allow the higher power density batteries developed by Stan Ovshinsky to be commercialized.

Cervus:
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough.
If you remember Ma Bell then you have an example of how their control of the telephone, set telephone development back by decades; the same might be true if the oil companies are able to control the production of batteries.

I don't care who builds the first mass production BEVs that are fairly priced.
If its GM or FORD; just build it and lets get off oil dependencies.

I am continually amazed and somewhat amused by comments such as those by Lad and rbtbob. Profit is what drives industry. Secondary motives such as "what is good for the world" are nice, and comments like "letting the NiMH technology onto the market" and "allow the higher density batteries ... to be commercialized" reflect a lack of understanding. When and where there is money to be made by selling these things and commercializing BEVs, it shall happen. To believe that big oil or big auto are deep-sixing such things is naive or simply looking for someone to blame for the fact that development of profitable products takes time.

I'd like a BEV too, and when they're affordable and practical, I will be at the head of the line down at the dealership, be it Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, Kia, Chery, or whomever.

Technology and business have changed alot since Ma Bell ruled the roost. Unfortunately, not always for the better. I'd really like to have a heavy duty land line phone that I didn't have to replace every 6 to 12 months because the chinzy, optimized, "environmentally-friendly" pieces of crap from Best Buy won't hang together!

Cervus and Richard, thanks for keeping this blog in touch with reality.

isn't there some law that if a patent isn't used (ie large format NiMH for BEVs) by the company that owns the patent it become void after some time period?

Sure, it's called the patent expiration date. It's the same date that applies if the patent is used.

Roy--

It would be nice if markets were not subject to manipulation for the benefit of vested interests.

Chevron DOES profit from the holding of the patent. Not by using it, but by preventing its use, thereby keeping their cash cow alive as long as possible.

I would not have a problem with this technique of patent holding if it did not have severe implications for national security. If an Arab oil embargo caused so much disruptions in the 70's when we imported 30% of our oil, what will it be like now that we import 60% of our oil?

Marcus:

What you are refer to is quite popular article in patent licensing agreement, but not applicable to patent per se.

Patent is agreement between inventor and government, where inventor should publish detailed description of his invention, and government grants to inventor exclusive rights to patent use. Full text of US patents are available for free in electronic form from:

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html

Patented invention become free to use for everybody when patent expires, in US it is 20 years after filing date (with yearly maintenance fee payable to US PTO). Patents should be acquired in each country individually to be valid on their territory.

Stories about some evil companies buying and burying patents, or prohibiting their use are pure fantasy, thought quite popular among illiterate conspiracy junkies. Any owner of useful patent will do everything to widespread patented technology and get as much money as possible, before patent expires. However, price for patented technology is invariably higher before patent expires (drugs are prime example).

P.S. Copyright for books, songs, paintings, and alike are maintained for much longer, usually for 50 years after death of the author.

Chevron has invested several hundred million dollars to develop the technology and build a manufacturing plant. That investment, plus sales for Saturn VUE, etc. are enough to avoid any claims of patent-burying, at least where the courts are concerned. Of course EV fans see it differently.....

Trademarks, when not used for a period of 3 years are no longer valid (use may be advertisements, sales, or pursuing legal action against trademark infringement).

Since when does A123 own all patents on large format Li-Ion batteries. Seems to me that Delphi & Ener1 (EnerDel) have more patents on large format Li-ion batteries than A123 could hope for.

A123 doesn't dominate patents on Li-Ion technology in general, but on nanophosphate lithium ion battery technology, which has a higher power density, ten times the life cycle, and absurdly fast recharge rates.
ECD & Chevron's Cobasys joint venture is interested only in their application in vehicular applciations: http://www.cobasys.com/news/20070103.shtml

ECD also dominates the patent landscape in other types of batteries, as well as promising hydrogen fuel cell technologies. Their hydrogen and fuel cell ventures were previously shared with Chevron, like Cobasys, but ECD regained full ownership.

It is commonly claimed that Cobasys refuses to manufacture or license large-format NiMH batteries. I'm not sure that they even can license the rights; it seems that ECD licenses NiMH technology to its half-owned subsidiary Cobasys, so Chevron (Cobasys' other parent) has nothing to do with such licensing. And Cobasys manufactures 900 pound NiMH batteries for use on buses and military vehicles, so I don't know what more is needed for BEVs and PHEVs. NiMH simply seem impractical from a cost/performance perspective (deep cycling kills their life cycle), and I'd guess they don't want to sell them in quantities of one or two because of the associated hassles and safety concerns.

When GM had a controlling interest over the patents, that was a different era, a differently structured corporate entity, and that's when NiMH batteries *were* sold for BEVs, to Ford, Diamler Chrysler, Toyota, Honda and others. GM sold their interests to Texaco (soon to become ChevronTexaco) in 2001, as California's Zero Emission Vehicle Program which mandated BEV production was arguably defanged.

Though take my opinion with a grain of salt, just like I take yours with lots of grains. I don't know much about the GM era (1994-2001), and perhaps there was an anti-licensing conspiracy at that time.