EEventually wrote:
After reviewing the patent and giving a copy to my favorite chemist, I'm really kind of disappointed with you guys. This is much bigger than it seems. Much much bigger.
I know somebody who will be calling Cedar Park pretty soon to seek a license to use this process.
Ceramics based nanotech will owe its existence (and a portion of its revenue) to EEStor for a long time.
Notice c6/l60. This is where they parted company with a specific process that showed up as a patent for their chemistry development partner. It also mentions specifically why.
Notice also C6/l8. This is very likely the "consumable" supplier who is so thoroughly challenged by DW. Great tie-in. I'll drink to that and yes, it will be Bombay.
What is really new here in this patent is the liquid-liquid ion exchange process for elements of very similar oxidation potential. They use differing ion charge density between the desired and undesired ions to be targeted by a hydrocarbon, acidified, and then salted out/filtered. The chemistry is not necessarily new but the mechanisms and process flow is. I haven't ready the dialogue between CN and USPTO yet so I'll come back after I look at that.
The claims are very strong but as noted before, this is a US only patent. It was likely decided early-on that the claims were winnable but publication was risky. So instead of gaining legal standing on this process by choosing the less-stealthy international IP process, they employed proprietary supplier agreements. In this way, they can retain market share by holding their equipment and material suppliers very closely. If someone wants to copy this in China, they will have to talk a US supplier into killing their gold-egg laying goose to provide the goods to make it happen. The parts are NOT going to be off-the-shelf and those parts are under supplier IP AND a proprietary supply agreement. Basically, EEStor is saying "here's how to make it, good luck buying the equipment."
Technically, this patent is very new stuff and is probably #3 in line of revolutionary processes behind:
1. CMBT particle precipitation (how the hell do they get >99% crystalization, uniform particle size, relatively low temp 1050C, and complete removal of activating chemistry at the same time.
2. Uniform 100A Al2O3 coating of complete conformality and ridiculous purity.
These guys didn't do this alone. They have done it with a great deal of help and have done it with utter secrecy. This is the kind of project LM can help pull off.
I still don't understand why people complain about how long it's taking. Read the damned patent and realize that most of what's in there is a new kind of aqueous chemistry. I'm very very impressed with this patent and more understanding of merits of the first milestone.
EEventually, I agree that there are not enough people on this forum who are goving this the attention it deserves.
Come on guys, weight in on this one.
I just have a few queries I would appreciate your thoughts on:
EEventually wrote:
"I know somebody who will be calling Cedar Park pretty soon to seek a license to use this process".
Are you able to say who? Is it a sizeable company and would they be willing to pay a significant sum to license the use of the process?
EEventually wrote:
"So instead of gaining legal standing on this process by choosing the less-stealthy international IP process, they employed proprietary supplier agreements"
Do we know that they have these proprietary supplier agreements in place?
EEventually wrote:
"These guys didn't do this alone. They have done it with a great deal of help and have done it with utter secrecy. This is the kind of project LM can help pull off"
What makes you say this? Where has the help come from apart from LM (who we know about)?
EEventually wrote:
"I'm very very impressed with this patent and more understanding of merits of the first milestone"
What is it that has impressed you most about this Patent?
I would very much appreciate your feedback and thanks for the post.
Last edited Sun, 24 Jan 2010, 11:53am
by EEcosse