I did not find it to be an advertisement in a "commercial sense" at all. It seems to me it was a very informative article about the science behind it etc., that has 20 years development in the academic community. The only reference to commercialization was a single reference to the technology being patented - and I do not see who that debases the article. It is about 5 words out of what must be several thousand.
I have found a load of other academic articles about the subject too, so do not understand the comment from Danijel "Anyway I have a hard time finding anything non-advertising about this". Number one, this is not true from even my brief research and if so, so what? Does that make the technology any less "worthy"? I do not think so. Why should it?
Regarding patenting, then it is very often required to ensure quality in the process: loads of Universities and colleges own substantial portfolios of patents. The point being that if something is patented, then unless you have a license you can use the method that's been patented. I would have thought that is prudent. It allows those who understand the technology to control its usage - and at the end of the day we do not want to build bridges and wotnot that collapse because the material was dodgy because someone had ripped-off technology they had not fully understood. I suspect that the patent protection is there to ensure quality.
If I were Chinese, I would want the license. Because I would also want the know how that comes with it and that's always going to be more valuable than not having that for the reasons covered.
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
EMC Greener Cement
in Engineering
Posted
Reply to Danijel Gorupec: I also took a look at the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetically_modified_cement
I did not find it to be an advertisement in a "commercial sense" at all. It seems to me it was a very informative article about the science behind it etc., that has 20 years development in the academic community. The only reference to commercialization was a single reference to the technology being patented - and I do not see who that debases the article. It is about 5 words out of what must be several thousand.
I have found a load of other academic articles about the subject too, so do not understand the comment from Danijel "Anyway I have a hard time finding anything non-advertising about this". Number one, this is not true from even my brief research and if so, so what? Does that make the technology any less "worthy"? I do not think so. Why should it?
Regarding patenting, then it is very often required to ensure quality in the process: loads of Universities and colleges own substantial portfolios of patents. The point being that if something is patented, then unless you have a license you can use the method that's been patented. I would have thought that is prudent. It allows those who understand the technology to control its usage - and at the end of the day we do not want to build bridges and wotnot that collapse because the material was dodgy because someone had ripped-off technology they had not fully understood. I suspect that the patent protection is there to ensure quality.
If I were Chinese, I would want the license. Because I would also want the know how that comes with it and that's always going to be more valuable than not having that for the reasons covered.