From: declrckd@rtsg.mot.com (Dan J. Declerck)
Subject: Re: fuel/engine efficiency
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:40:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.024455.9963@morrow.stanford.edu> karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.131424.584@halfdome.sf.ca.us> bob@halfdome.sf.ca.us
>(bob pasker) writes:
>>while i don't have evidence for a hydrogen powered engine specifically, there
>>is evidence that new technology is either stolen (q.v. the inslaw case,
>>interval windshield wipers)
>
>The Inslaw case involves charges of theft and abuse of
>power, not of suppression of new ideas.
>
>The case of interval windshield wipers, like the case of
>wing windows before it, is a classic example of the little
>guy's difficulty in enforcing his patent rights.  In both
>cases, the technology was used without payment, not
>suppressed.
>
>>or bought up (trains, trolley cars, as already pointed out)
>
>No oil or automobile bought up rail factories or patents on
>locomotives to eliminate competition from the rails.

Uh, GM owns the only major railroad engine manufacturer in the U.S.
For a while, GM Truck, Bus, and Coach was the only maker of Bus chassis.
(Show me an urban bus that isn't made by GM) I'm not counting Wayne, Thomas, or BlueBird
which are school busses.

>
>>or dealed away (the "achnacarry agreement," where the seven sister
>>agreed to eliminate competition between themselves as a way of driving prices
>>up).  lets see, there's also the arrangment between ITT (which had large
>>european investments) and the nazis.  the former agreed to keep supplying
>>military equipment to the nazis in exchange for not siezing their european
>>assets. 
>
>Neither of these examples has anything to do with suppressing
>technology.
>
>>such underhandedness leaves little doubt in my mind that when it comes
>>to innovation, its "business as usual": protect existing markets at any 
>>cost.
>
>This is a distortion of capitalist economics.  Markets are
>definitely not protected "at any cost".  The values of
>potential markets are carefully considered.  That's why it
>doesn't make sense to assume that oil companies have a
>vested interest in suppressing non-petroleum energy storage
>systems.
>
>During times when the oil giants have been cash rich, they
>have invested in coal, oil shale, and solar energy.  They
>know that the cost of extracting oil may some day rise to
>the point where other technologies will be more
>profitable.  For a sample of the thinking involved, look
>back six or seven years in Scientific American for an
>article by Bill Menard on the increasing cost of oil
>exploration and development.  He has some plots of oil
>produced against steel used in drilling for it, a reminder
>that there has to be a point of diminishing returns
>somewhere.

In summary, I don't feel that there is some sort of "collusion" by the
fictitious Auto Petroleum Industrial Complex. Every once-in-a-while a guy
tries to break the back of an automaker with a new car. DeLorean, Tucker,Hayes,
etc.. all have had their day, and all have failed due to o businees practices.




-- 
=> Dan DeClerck                      |  EMAIL: dand%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com   <=
=> Motorola Intl Subscriber Group    |                                    <=
=>                                   |  Phone: (708) 632-4486             <=
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles