the print on this one is not so fine...
an american honda alternative fuels program spokesperson
(connie walton?) just called to clarify/amplify "the motor trend
misprint", saying that they contemplate no changes in the use
of panasonic batteries for the 1999 model year honda ev+.
as oldtimers know, panasonic is a sub of matsushita,
who currently accrues no EV battery royalties for ECD.
part of the argument is that matsushita has a license
for "consumer batteries" from ECD [for which they do pay
fees at some low rate (1/2%?)], but that they want the
same rate for the prismatic items >30mAh. for the toyota prius,
panasonic apparently has chosen to workaround the
mischmetal-related lawsuit "settlement" by stringing
together a plethora of tiny "consumer" batteries
to make a hybrid EV pack!
my take on opening up the royalty can of worms -- challenge
ECD to periodically list all products X for which they receive
royalites. then we can assume product Y not on the list
is either exempt from ECD patents or is not worth recovery,
or is too new to judge.
right now ECD misleadingly chooses to answer all questions
attempting to match product Y with a revenue stream by
intoning that product Y is made by company Z which is
an ECD licensee. but as we have seen more than once, many
large-volume (actual or potential) products are distributed by
ECD licensees who don't really use the manufacturing license.
if they do manufacture, it's often something using
the almighty "ECD technology" (phase change, NiMH, whatever)
but (in the rogue companies' belief, because that's all it takes short
of a courtroom) only the subset *not* covered by the
unexpired patents explicitly listed in the license agreement.
e.g. phase change. sony & ecd jointly put out a press release
talking about an extended license. you think, oh great,
all sony phase change products will mean $$ to ENER shareholders.
reality: sony resells unlicensed ricoh media. when ecd
whines "but wait, you know that this stuff is phase change,
and we have a royalty-bearing license", they might send out
an exec to say "all we know is that thing X we buy from
company Z is a round, 120 cm disk, and has some amorphous-looking
metal sandwiched in -- why don't you ask *them* if this
stuff violates your patents?"
and so it goes...
p.s. is ricoh contemplating making unlicensed DVD-sized erasables?
are their tustin, california assembly lines starting up this month,
per press release? will power-tool NiCad battery drop-in
replacement be "Ovonic NiMH" or non-Ovonic NiMH? inquiring minds
(and pension funds) want to know! |
