U.S. taxpayer-funded battery technology licensed to Japanese company for Canadian production
My friend Lou Ann Hammond sat down with Don Hillebrand of the Argonne National Lab following last week's unveiling of the Chevy Volt. Argonne has developed some very promising lithium ion battery chemistry. The work done at Argonne is funded in large part by the U.S. Department of Energy, which can be translated as taxpayer dollars. It's nothing unusual for governments to fund basic research or for the results of that research to be licensed to private companies for commercialization. However, in other countries, that technology is usually targeted at domestic companies for commercialization. Here in the U.S. however, there is no preference given. In fact, it turns out technology developed here is often licensed to companies from elsewhere. In the case of the electrodes developed at Argonne, a license went to Toda Kogyo, a Japanese battery manufacturer. Toda is planning to manufacture batteries in Canada, using technology our tax dollars paid to develop. Is this a wise use of our money? If no U.S. company is willing to step up and use the products of our research, it should at least be used by someone. The fundamental problem is not that foreign companies are licensing our technology, but that Americans apparently don't have the foresight to do so. Apparently, they feel it's wiser to focus on services than actually producing tangible products. That strategy seems to be working so well in today's economy, so why not continue?[Source: CarList]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sidewinder 10:12AM (9/23/2008)
Add this to a long list of "Invented in America, ignored by American businesses".
A couple of other examples - the Deming Method for Continuous Improvement. Notably used by Japanese automakers to improve the reliability of their automobiles.
Rejected by US automakers whose business model wanted 1) poorly made cars at the bottom of the line to drive sales "UP" & 2) wanted people to replace their cars every 50,000 miles.
Personal Rapid Transit - envisioned & designed by American engineers - notably Dr Edward Anderson of the University of Minnesota - this technology will be implemented first at Heathrow Airport, in Uppsala, Sweden by the Korean company POSCO, & (most ironically of all) in Masdar in the UAE.
Rejected by a US Transit industry that prefers busses & so-called "Light" Rail. They actually enshrined into law the proposition that no Federal Funds could be provided for "unproven" transit technology, guaranteeing that US transit would rely on 100 year old technology.
Reply
KenZ 11:11AM (9/23/2008)
As a former employee of a US-based battery startup, I will note that for battery stuff, it's hard for US companies to even enter the battery business as they almost always have to manufacture overseas anyway. Regardless of the huge interest and potential volume in auto sales, batteries are a LOW margin business, and always will be. Thus, it's not the best business for most US companies anyway. Leave it to the overseas companies to do most of the low margin/high volume work, and keep the US in the invention and licensing role. I'm fine with that.
One other thing to add to the list of IP sold overseas. Zytel (I think that's the name), an improved aromatic synthetic polymer that has better ballistic properties than Kevlar. Exclusive license to a Japanese company as no US company had interest, and now we're buying it back for cutting edge armor, etc. That's a high margin product, and the type that should have never been licensed overseas, although it wasn't developed in a gov't lab.
Globalization. Get used to it!
Reply
Mel 11:41AM (9/23/2008)
I just hope the license fees are high enough to make a return on the tax dollars invested.
Reply
brn 11:59AM (9/23/2008)
"If no U.S. company is willing to step up"
How about no US company is ABLE to step up after decades of unfair (and often illegal) tactics by foreign competitors?
Reply
rob 1:18PM (9/23/2008)
I think they are all able. I truly believe that it is the inherent short term thinking that is the problem.
I used to work for a US company that is still trying to be a player in the Li-Ion battery market. They had an R&D rule that says you could do R&D as long as it has the potential to pay back by the end of the next fiscal quarter. So, if you start your project early in the quarter, you have 6 months to be commercially viable. Needless to say, I moved on.
Now if they tie executive deferred compensation (stock options, severance, etc.) to long term gain we might be on to something. Turn it from slash and run tactical thinking to more long term strategic thinking.