http://forums.industryweek.com Talk about the issues raised in a recent IW article, column or news item. en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:28:55 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.industryweek.com/IWImages/misc/rss.jpg http://forums.industryweek.com http://feeds.penton.com/~r/IWTalkBackForum/~3/itjNe8XAgZ0/showthread.php Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:38:33 GMT Steven Scanlon and Jones Day wrote a good article, "High Quality Patents-- The Objective Analysis". It is featured under "Economy and Public Policy" here in Industry Week today, Nov 16th. In the article they discussed President Obama's call for more US patents, and the factors that make an invention patentable. It should be a chapter in a textbook. Their point of departure was the question of what is a "High Quality Patent". They defined it as a patent that met some very important technical legal tests for a patentable invention. They also asked the question of how we could identify an idea as a candidate for a "high quality patent".

So - what does it mean on a daily basis? President Obama is an academic, he is a product of the US university culture. Academics live or die by the number of papers they have published. Not only published, but published in prestigious peer reviewed obscure scholarly journals. Not only published in the above referenced journal, but referred to in subsequent papers published in said journals. Academics keep stats every bit as complicated as baseball players- and their pay and career depend on these stats. (Unfortunately many times teaching effectiveness is not considered an important statistic.)

A 20 inch article on sheep scabies treatment, published in the "Uinta County Herald" in Evanston Wyoming, just does not have the punch that an article on the scabies genome would have in "Nature" in Basingstoke Hampshire England.

Likewise a patented cast iron wrench may not be viewed having the ultimate impact of Bell Lab's transistor. (unless it hits you between the eyes).

I think that President Obama, our Academic in Chief, is calling for the US to patent a pile of "transistors" " Lasers" "internal combustion engines" "telegraphs" and "light bulbs". These are the disruptive inventions of the past, that literally changed our culture, lifestyle, and the condition of the majority of people in the world. If he only wants to patent this level of innovation, what is the risk?

When we invent something here, develop it here, manufacture it here, learn from it here, apply it here, integrate it here and utilize it here, -Then we profit from it here and it benefits US here.

The "Innovation Chain".

If any of these things are outsourced, then we lose the benefits. If we drop the any of these links, we lose.

Can we determine, in advance, what a high quality patent will be? And only fund those? Only patent "the one"? I don't think so. Which is more important? Morse's telegraph? Or blacksmith farmer Cornell's overhead transmission line and insulators? Cornell University is named for him, and, he died broke.

For half my life I worked for an organization that prides itself on research and invention. Did we invent? Yes. Did we innovate? Yes. Did we work on disruptive technologies? Yes. Did we patent? No. Our "administration" did not usually foresee an immediate cash return. Did others patent our work? Sometimes. Were these patents valuable? Yes. Did the patent holder make money? Yes. Did we have our research "patented out from under us"? Yes.

I don't think we can really foresee the impact of a patent in many cases before it is written, nor can we see the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order impacts. Like Cornell's transmission line, sometimes we have wait for an Edison's light bulb and Westinghouse's alternator to really see the mass application of the technology.

Sr Richard Branson is using a hybrid rocket engine for his suborbital spacecraft. He will undoubtedly have to pay some royalties. Will I benefit? Will the group I worked with? I worked on dozens of hybrid engines, over almost 20 years. The people I worked with didn't patent our innovations ( or feel a need to publish). Others did. Sr Richard will pay them. As it is, so many of "our" practices have been patented by others, well, we pretty much got fenced out of what had been "our" field.

The real danger to the US is not that we will waste money patenting a couple of million worthless ideas, the real danger is that we will miss the half a dozen that will cost the US billions in lost opportunities. ]]> Reader Talk-Back wesdavidson http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9741 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9741 http://feeds.penton.com/~r/IWTalkBackForum/~3/YMVk541HkWI/showthread.php Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:17:26 GMT Concerning the recent article it's clear that the Chinese government recognizes the strategic and wider economic value of these materials. I'm guessing there is probably some US government funding of the research to produce them here.
Hopefully also some investment from those industries that will come to rely on them.

Will we also recognize that these resources should not be exported for financial gain but used to secure jobs and class leading technology within the US?

The greatest level of independence in all strategic raw materials should be everyone's priority. That will also take a long term view in partnership with the government rather than any kind of free global trade for short term financial gain.

Rog ]]> Reader Talk-Back Rog http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9631 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9631 http://feeds.penton.com/~r/IWTalkBackForum/~3/PS_htOpWYps/showthread.php Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:50:59 GMT How kind it is of Charles E. Johnson, CSP's Co-Founder and Chairman, and former Co-President of Franklin Templeton Investments, to invest in China when the US is so desperately requiring new jobs in 'green' technologies and a route to reducing it's dependance on foreign oil.

I wonder what drives such a decision? I would expect these are highly automated and not labor intensive processes so the productivity to be gained with lower cost labor in China would be questionable.

I guess now we'll have to just live with replacing our imports of foreign oil with imports of foreign solar cells.

Rog ]]> Reader Talk-Back Rog http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9551 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9551 http://feeds.penton.com/~r/IWTalkBackForum/~3/JPJX9gxdsX0/showthread.php Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:41:10 GMT I guess that's not the greatest title for my comment but it was the recent article about Katadyn that caught my eye.

It shows that there is more than one option when it comes to being able to compete on a global playing field. I realize that their products are probably specialized and not sold into an intensely cost competitve market but it should be a model that similar businesses could adopt.

Also think a minute about why how cost competitive markets arise. It's because we as a nation, knowingly or otherwise have chosen them. We tend to value cost over quality but where does that lead? To reduce costs means ever improving productivity which through three possible routes leads to fewer jobs in the nations manufacturing sector. Fewer jobs in manufacturing means that more jobs have to be created in non-cash generating sectors or unemployment rises. The amount of profit from manufacturing has to be able to pay for this or one or both of two things happen.

1) We have to rely on bogus, unsustainable sources of income such as trading in obscure derivatives and/or
2) We have to borrow money.

I know some will say that we can sell services but they are also a cost driven product (where's the person that answers when you call the help line?).

As Karl Marx observed in 1867 : 'Owners of Capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more expensive goods, houses and technology, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and State will have to take the road that will eventually lead to communism'.

Sound familiar. Maybe it's time to seek a middle path (I'm no advocate of either communism or the free market. It's clear they are a Yin and Yang but that's a whole different thread). Maybe Katadyn have opened a crack in the door that might shed light on what a new way could be.

Rog ]]> Reader Talk-Back Rog http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9381 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9381 http://feeds.penton.com/~r/IWTalkBackForum/~3/e1-V8cC2-u0/showthread.php Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:22:56 GMT Many European countries have public option health care systems that function adequately if not better than that of the US. These countries also have manufacturing economies on a par with the USA per capita. The benefit of a state run healthcare system is that it frees the employer of the need to... Many European countries have public option health care systems that function adequately if not better than that of the US. These countries also have manufacturing economies on a par with the USA per capita. The benefit of a state run healthcare system is that it frees the employer of the need to provide it and thus reduces manufacturing costs. In the UK and many other European countries one can choose to have private health care if one wants and can afford to. It is often given as part of a package to managerial and executive positions but most employers do not provide healthcare support for the bulk of their employees who are covered by the state scheme.

Let's be clear about one thing the government is not dictating the cost of health care to manufacturing, the 'for profit' health insurance companies are. Instead of railing aginst pending legistalation should the manufacturing industry representatives not be dicussing with the government ways to reduce the burden on manufacturing? Of course that probably means challenging the staus quo of the current healthcare system. ]]> Reader Talk-Back Rog http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9161 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9161 http://feeds.penton.com/~r/IWTalkBackForum/~3/M85Mc5W2R6Y/showthread.php Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:13:48 GMT It is very sad to see what some Americans will do to make a profit. Electrolux closing two plants while they are still making a profit to move to Mexico. I guess people and the USA don't really matter when it comes to making more and more money. I for one will never purchase from this company again. Electrolux is a name everyone knew and respected, well not anymore. ]]> Reader Talk-Back gayle4711 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9041 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9041 http://feeds.penton.com/~r/IWTalkBackForum/~3/39dkJQHsNcM/showthread.php Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:17:51 GMT Jill,
Rogue employees as an agent for change?
I liked your summary.
I knew of a group like that once, -or twice. They sketched the picture of a bulls head with an eye patch, and referred to the programs that the group initiated as "pirate programs". One of those projects resulted in a Wright Flyer replica made of carbon fiber composites and powered by a Harley engine. It had no institutional funding, was built of donated and scrounged materials in space borrowed from "legitimate' programs - and resulted in the eventual dismissal of all the participants. But it has made over 500 flights, toured the nation, was the subject of a "History Channel " program and is now in Dayton Ohio at the Wright Brothers Museum. ( it neatly joined history and the future, new pilots and techs worked side by side with a surviver of the Dolittle Raid on tokyo, a classmate of the Rutans, a winner of the "Charles Taylor award" and a mechanic that worked on "Glamoris Glenis" ) Another pirate program resulted in what is now a well respected flight training program at the same institution. (the institution let all of the folks go, but still uses images of the Flyer in advertising).

What were the reasons that the group thrived and then disbanded? You hit on it. The percieved threat to the organization.

The group came together from a common vision that things were possible. There was during this time a sometimes spoken contract between management and inovation, it had several parts.
(1) (management) the basic work had to get done.
(2) (pirates) there were multiple paths to completion.
(1a) (management) results still have to meet industry standards.
(2a) (pirates) Results wildly exceeded industry standards due to improved resources.
(3) (management) severe budget constraints limited options for improvements.
(4) ( pirates) innovative programs attract outside investment, donations and involvement with experts from around the nation.
(5) (management) if the project goes off track we kill it.
(6) (pirates ) we could live with that.

This culture resulted in a fantastic training ground for the younger techs and engineers, from certifying aircraft, testing rocket motors, flying remote sensing payloads and trying new flight simulator ideas, and a whole slew of materials and process inovations. The folks lucky enough to be there have done well around the country. From C-17s to cessnas, skycranes, airlines, drones, manlifts and golf clubs - Those people are there.

The end came when the management that had fostered the innovaton retired. The new management wanted guaranteed results and cash up front. They did not value the community and industry involvement, the unpredictable results of innovation, and they could not tolerate the all too often failures of thes experiments.

A clean sweep was made, a few pirates held on, long enough to foster a couple of Nasa student rocket contest wins, and a few more smart engineers. The programs limp on, we hope that a new crop of pirates will emerge. This group was not the first, And won't be the last.

As for the all-important "good of the company" sometimes you have to agree to disagree. The Group of pirates were dedicated to producing the best engineers and technicians they could, the institution was merely a tool to accomplish that. Any fame, papers, grants, cash, were byproducts to be plowed back into the prime directive, build people. Sometimes those guys could be excused for thinking that the new management does not have the same goals. ]]> Reader Talk-Back wesdavidson http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=8821 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=8821 http://feeds.penton.com/~r/IWTalkBackForum/~3/OwLLTSNZqYM/showthread.php Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:47:31 GMT IndustryWeek just posted the news here.

I believe this plant may be Dell's newest in the U.S. It is less than 5 years old.

What the AFP article doesn't mention are the incentives attached to this plant. Like many other manufacturers, Dell was offered an incentives package to locate its facility here. Some portion of that may need to be returned, given that the plant did not remain open for five years. That all depends on the compliance requirements of the incentives package. A little more detail on the incentives component of this closure is in this article. ]]> Reader Talk-Back Jill Jusko http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=8661 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=8661