If the super-iron cathodes prove to work well for MH batteries, how could this be anything but good for ECD? I expect it to be important and, probably, to increase royalty percentages. FWIW, here is my "take" on your question -- all of it assuming that the super-iron cathodes are patentable (near certainty) and work as expected by Licht, et al.
It is, IMO, unlikely that anyone would or could put up enough money to buy exclusive rights to this new technology -- even for exclusivity limited to the MH battery type. However, if ECD did have exclusive rights, this would permit an increased royalty, not a lessened percentage.
ECD would certainly be able to acquire non-exclusive rights to the SI-tech because ECD is so prominent in the MH battery arena and is most likely to be able to best adapt SI-tech to MH batteries. Whatever reasonable costs ECD incurred from the SI-tech purchase, I think they could easily pass these on to their licensees (well, maybe after the usual drawn-out fight). In fact, IMO, the SI-tech would help get ECD's royalties up to a higher level than what would only cover the additional costs.
My belief is that ECD's royalties are presently low because of a weak posture when these were negotiated. Aside from simply being a small company, the weakness was due to (1) NiMH batteries not then being of such major importance and (2) ECD's batteries then had a much smaller advantage over other NiMH batteries. From (1), I think it likely that SI-tech, even if not owned by ECD, would increase the importance of MH batteries in general and thus increase the value of ECD's owned technology. (This conclusion assumes that some other re-chargeable battery type does not benefit more from SI-tech than the MH type).
Since, presumably, all MH battery makers could benefit about the same from SI-tech, this adoption by the industry would not directly effect the competitive positions of the various MH-battery manufacturers. So, weakness (2) is not directly improved by adding SI-tech, though adding it avoids increasing that weakness. What will help a lot to cure (2) is when (if?) ECD successfully incorporates their new magnesium hydride materials, thus substantially lowering the weight of Ovonic batteries.
Without the magnesium hydride and, hopefully, the SI-tech improvements, I am not really comfortable with the expectation that ECD's batteries will become and stay dominant . This is because, unlike some others here, I now think LiPoly batteries will be strong contenders -- even for automotive use. One reason for my concern is that Delphi (GM spin-off) continues to indicate their commitment to LiPoly batteries for auto use, including the upcoming 42 volt systems. The specs for these batteries look very good, substantially better than present Ovonic batteries, though they are apparently not yet well proven for automotive use. And, the long-standing manufacturing problems for LiPoly batteries are claimed to be solved.
(I am long VLNC as well as ENER).
Ray |
