On thing to regard, besides the tax, R&D investment, and commercial
potential of the patents is the likelihood of a commercially viable product
emerging within 5 years.
PHAST had lots of bugs. As a business analyst, I would be asking P&G
scientists how much this technology is going to cost in terms of investment
and time before we would ever see a profit. Based on the lack of interest
in PHAST after Plynetics Express, I would bet that the technology did not
have a commercial potential for at least 3 to 5 years with dedicated
investment. The investment in time was going to be large, plus those
scientists could be working on a product with a higher potential for
profits. And, the analysts would look at the competitive situation, where
the 3Ds, and DTMs are furiously trying to improve their processes and
already have a market presense, plus total market dollars returned now and
in the future. No corporation has unlimited resources, so projects have to
compete for manpower and money. Projects have to be justified. PHAST
probably did not meet criteria for good business allocation of resources.
B. J. Arnold-Feret
ppsltd@airmail.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Burns <Marshall@Ennex.com>
To: anything@michaelrees.com <anything@michaelrees.com>; rp mailing list
<rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi>
Date: Thursday, October 28, 1999 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Very Curious announcement
>Michael and List,
>
> I thought it might have been a hoax, so I checked it out at the P&G Web
>site, and the release is there (http://www.pg.com/about/news/nsearch.htm,
>search for "phast"). But I agree with Michael that this doesn't add up to
>more than a lot of corporate hype. If I were a shareholder of P&G and I saw
>them giving away technology with commercial potential of $1 billion a year,
>as stated in the release, I would be asking management some very tough
>questions. I'd say this is a very fancy way of denying that they haven't
>figured out how to make it work and they don't want to bother trying any
>more. However, I also agree with Elaine that this is an excellent
>opportunity for MSoE faculty and students to work on a good, tough, and
>potentially valuable problem.
>
>Best regards,
>Marshall Burns
>
>Marshall@Ennex.com
>Ennex Corporation, Los Angeles, USA, (310) 824-8700
>www.Ennex.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Rees <rees@michaelrees.com>
>To: rp mailing list <rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi>
>Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 23:32 PM
>Subject: Very Curious announcement
>
>
>>Dear list,
>>
>>who posted that announcement that Proctor and Gamble are donating over
>>40 patents to MSOE?
>>
>>I find this very interesting and very puzzling. Now, granted I stick my
>>head in sculpture all day long so forgive me my innocence. Is this
>>announcement an indication that P&G sees this field as so unprofitable
>>that they're just going to give it away? Certainly if anyone has the
>>resources to develop this it would P&G. Making prototypes just doesn't
>>compete with Pringles eh? Or? Any speculations on why they did this? I
>>wonder how much the MSOE lawyers spent pouring over the patents for
>>infringements and the like. Does a gift like this make it difficult to
>>sue a school if they develop infringing processes? Sorry, it just
>>doesn't make any sense to me. Did they retain some important piece of
>>the puzzle.
>>
>>Really, if anyone could explain this to me, I would be really
>>interested.
>>
>>best,
>>--
>>michael rees effective immediately
>>suite Number 301 www.michaelrees.com
>>1015 Washington Ave 314 494 7393
>>St. Louis Mo 63101 msr@michaelrees.com
>>
>>
>>
>>For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>
>
>For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:53:12 EEST