To: Zeev Hed who wrote (22265 ) 11/12/2000 1:44:38 PM From: Dennis V. Read Replies (1) | Respond to Zeev, thanks. I agree that the prospective licensees will argue a hardship case. Valence's offer and counter arguments could be more complex. Appeal to pride; the ability to steal a march on other countries' companies. (Think of the balance of payments issue). "Don't be left behind, the Japanese are coming". Appeal to commonsense economics, steal a market where some heretofore dominant players are subject to a 17% tariff. Manufacture a battery where the patented electrode offers a 30% cost advantage. Stay ahead of the others, get access to GenIII, etc technology. Reduce manufacturing costs attributed to disposal fees. Recover and recycle material. Avoid a future "pollution" tax. Avoid recalls due to safety issue. Even one could cost you big. "Don't count pennies here, Americans are crazy, they take this stuff seriously". "The other guy is VERY interested". Prospects will be asked to consider the possibilities to enter the large scale market where Li ion is most vulnerable and big profits are possible. They will not just get access to patented processes but full consultation(handholding) during startup. Valence will cooperate as a "second source". The alternative is to do nothing. "Look, we have the technology and you are well equipped and financed, together, you preeminent position is sure to be maintained far into the future, regardless of the others. We can insert a clause which allows renegotiation within 3 years if certain conditions are not met, meantime the royalty will be set at 8% of sales; are we agreed?" There are more, I'm sure....(G) But, why go on, Valence already has offers in hand.
