Talk:Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries/Archives/2012

Q: Did Ovonics say it would offer PHEV conversion kits for $3-6k? A: No.

When I read, "ECD Ovonics then announced its intention to make plug-in hybrid conversion kits for the Prius commercially available in the $3-6K range" on the Wiki page, I read the cited .pdf to see if it is true. From what I can tell, it is not.

1) On page 15 of the .pdf, it does say that a Gold Peak NiMH PHEV will run 25 miles on pure electric and below that has a box comparing NiMH battery cost ("$3-6k") versus that of Li-Ion. But no where does it say that: (a) Ovonics or anyone will offer a plug-in hybrid conversion kit; or (b) that a kit will cost "$3-6k". It only says that the NiMH batteries in such a conversion (to run 25 miles pure electric) will cost "$3-6k".

2) When you go to the website listed on the side of the car in the image (www.PlugInConversions.com), and go to their FAQs page, you will see that they expressly do NOT offer kits (or sell converted cars), but will only convert a customer's owned 2004-2009 Prius for a total cost of $13,500. http://www.pluginconversions.com/faq.html

3) Plug-In Conversions is partially owned by Gold Peak, so, presumably, that is the company that p.15 of the .pdf is referring to and their cost of acquiring the necessary NiMH batteries from GP is "$3-6k". http://www.pluginconversions.com/phevs1.html

Because of the above, I thought it best to remove the offending sentence on the Wiki page which, IMHO, can confuse readers to think that a NiMH plug-in conversion kit will be soon marketed by EDC Ovonics to the public for "$3-6k".

Phantom in ca (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tense

FYI, I changed the verbs in the Chevron discussion to past tense because of the sale.Xchange (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!  Stepho  (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Advert/comparisons

I find it very hard to believe that it is necessary to invclude comparisons with other battery types in this article given the title. It looks to me as though someone is attempting to advertise these batteries. So don't be surprised if i remove off topic sentences, even if they are referenced. Greglocock (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the paragraph that you deleted should have stayed. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the conspiracy theory but this supposed conspiracy theory only works if Ovonics can block all practical applications. They can block NiMH with their patents but if there are other battery types that can be used then they have only succeeded in blocking their own revenue stream. The crux of that paragraph is that the other types perform well in an engineering sense but not in an economic sense (ie too expensive). Which means that Ovonics can still control the only practical battery technology.  Stepho  (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ovonics NiMH is not the only valid battery technology. I haven't got the faintest idea what they are up to as regards conspiracies, but comparisons between battery types should be handled on the EVB page, not here. Greglocock (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but that is exactly what the theorist are trying to say. My modest reading of various EV articles (books, websites, WP) show the 3 major battery types as:

• lead acid - too heavy but favoured by hobbyists because they are cheap.
• NiMH - reasonable cost, power and weight but Ovonics is not producing them
• LIon - good power and weight but expensive

Which means Ovonics has the opportunity to control the market (not saying if this is deliberate, just saying the opportunity is there). If the opportunity is not there then there can be no conspiracy. Hence, removing that paragraph also removes a needed dependency. If somebody wants to show a conspiracy theory then they also need to show that Ovonics has the opportunity to put a stranglehold on the industry, which means they need to show that other battery types not controlled by Ovonics are not suitable. Conversely, showing that other battery types are suitable for EVs puts a severe dent in the theory.  Stepho  (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now I'm confused. Why should some little paranoid conspiracy get any wiki-oxygen? Greglocock (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As the quote says, '"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". As long as they can get proper secondary source talking about a conspiracy, then we are obligated to allow them to put it into articles. And of course they must also allow rebuttals (also from appropriate sources). Which brings me to another important point - nobody should add, remove or edit that paragraph until a consensus has formed. Continual reversals are very disconcerting for readers not actively involved in the discussion.  Stepho  (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Stepho is exactly right. NiMH was and still is an important transitional technology. Li Ion technology has not been proven to be sufficiently reliable and it is prohibitively expensive. I think the problem is that this point should be made clear in the introduction of the discussion. This is exactly how Boschert organized the discussion in her book. I would be happy to draft a revision. Do you think that would be appropriate?Xchange (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is an important point but it is only a supporting point, not the main point of the article. I wouldn't put it in the introduction.  Stepho  (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that the article does not have a proper introduction. I recommend just one or two sentences.

"Critics argue that NiMH battery technology is important to the development of PHEVs and EVs, but that corporate interests have at times encumbered the technology's commercialization. Others dismiss this assertion as an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory."Xchange (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fair to both views and also concise - sound's good to me.  Stepho  (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I made substantial revisions to address Greglocock's concerns. I have tried to make clear the arguments of each side of the debate. See what you think. I do need some help properly formatting cites. I also believe the title of the article should be changes to simply "Encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries" because the relevant discussion goes beyond patent encumbrance. I have not done this because I don't know if it will mess up links from other articles. Will it?Xchange (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusing

large orders? small orders? what the hell do these mean? that para is contradictory. Greglocock (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What contradiction is that?  Stepho  (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Cobasys refuses to sell or license them to small companies or individuals. Boschert reveals that Cobasys accepts only very large orders for these batteries. When Boschert conducted her research, major auto makers showed little interest in large orders for large-format NiMH batteries. However, Toyota employees complained about the difficulty in getting smaller orders of large format NiMH batteries to service the existing 825 RAV-4EVs. Since no other companies were willing to make large orders, Cobasys was not manufacturing nor licensing any large format NiMH battery "

What is a very large order? is toyota a small company? would they fulfil a large order from a small company? what does what other companies do have to do with this article? If nobody wants to place a large order and Cobasys didn't want small orders from small companies like Toyota then it is hardly surprising that Cobasys weren't making any batteries. It's just a jumble of almost meaningless adjectives and factoids. Greglocock (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The intent of that paragraph is clear even if the wording is not perfect. Xchange (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, either sort the wording out or I will delete the para. I am perfectly used to reading and writing specs and if I say something is confusing then it probably is. Sort it out or it goes. And don't remove tags without sorting problems out.Greglocock (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The confusing tag should stay until the wording is sorted out. If one (experienced) reader is having trouble then there are probably many more who are too timid to say so. I too, found the Toyota part confusing ('however' normally means a contradiction of the previous sentence but here it seems unrelated to the previous sentence). 'small' and 'large' should be clarified. If the sources also use weasel words then we should at least put the weasel words in quotes.  Stepho  (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of battery format, large refers to 25+Ah. Boschert discusses this in the book. In terms of order size, Cobasys said they would need orders of at least 10,000. I will search for the cite on that. The problem for small companies is obvious. The problem that creates for large companies is that it precludes the development of test fleets, which tend to run from 250-1000. If large companies can't build a test fleet, then they won't invest in the R&D in the first place. Again, the cite is out there, but it would take me a little time to find it. I am happy to revise this section to incorporate this information, but I just don't want to have it deleted because its not perfectly cited.Xchange (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise, I recommend restoring the paragraph and then Greg can put {{cn}} and {{weasel}} on it as he sees fit. The tags can be removed once the citations are up to scratch.  Stepho  (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I revised the paragraph per Greglocock's request.Xchange (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing; Greglocock, calm down. I understood the paragraph and your denouncement of it and threatened unilateral action against it makes me wonder if you realise how easy it would be to negate your actions and how pointlessly unwinnable such a "wiki-war" would be. Most people can put "large" and "small" in context, and the actual size of the orders or restrictions did not matter because the article was about the consequences of them being considered "large" or "small" by the parties involved. Toyota is a large company that, like others large and small, was unable to order small numbers of batteries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.112.240 (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that this discussion ended over a year ago.  Stepho  (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yawn, how long til the patents, run out? I'm so calm I can't even keep my eyes open. Mind you I am very excited by the enormous flood of Nimh powered EVs we're going to see. That'll show 'em. Greglocock (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

tags

I removed the yellow tags because the article makes perfect sense to me, is well formatted, and is well cited. I left the orange tag on but I believe it, too, should be removed unless there are specific reasons that this article needs attention from an expert forthcoming. 99.22.95.61 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It reads like it was written by a conspiracy theorist who has attempted to explain himself to normal people, who don't have much patience with him. I assume you are the same person as Xchange? Greglocock (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not Xchange. What specific passages do you believe are incoherent or unsupported by sources? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It just rambles on. If you were to take the headings seriosuly the article comprises of a lede para and a Background section and nothing else. it releis heavily on quotes from a book whose author doesn't agree with t eh conspiracy theory. Never put down to evil that which can be explained by stupidity, is a very relevant observation. Greglocock (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you say which specific passages are at fault? I have reviewed the archived discussion from before this was a WP:SUMMARY article (which often only have an introductions, background material, source citations, and little else.) Do you take issue with any of the interpretations of the sources' claims? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is long due to both sides complaining whenever a view point differing from their own is put forward. So both sides eventually learnt to provide background information for everything they added. The natural side effect of this is it will be a bit long. Like you said, it's trying to explain to someone who doesn't agree but this was the only way to stop edit warring from both sides. Still, it makes a good read no matter which side of the argument you stand on. It seems as coherent as any other WP article.  Stepho  (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Stepho.Xchange (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I just pinged a friendly, unbiased admin on this. He is generally fairly informative and level-headed. Let's see what he says. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, so no comments on content. On the whole, I thought the article was reasonably clear, but I would make the following comments

• as above, I think the article could be better structured - a one-para lead plus a massive "background" (to what?) is unhelpful. Some structure, either chronological or by theme would be good
• there are places where the non-expert reader could be helped. "lithium ion technology", for example, is introduced without a link or explanation
• the references look dreadful, with bare urls, some with no author or publisher - use of cite web templates would help. It isn't clear to me why some refs, like this are WP:RS
• A copy edit would be good. There are formatting errors (The Economist should be italicised, refs should immediately follow punctuation), dodgy grammar (Chevron maintained the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations) and overuse of padding (however, moreover, in addition) and weasel words (Some sources contend...)

the tags may be a bit over the top, but there are issues that 30 minutes structuring and copy-editing would address Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Xchange and 24.19.37.58: Nice work! When you feel good about the new edits, why doesn't one of you ping Jim Bleak to get his opinion as to whether the tags should be removed? Cheers, Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I agree that the tags could be removed, but might as well let Jim have another look, perhaps he'll have some other suggestions. Well done. Greglocock (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have not fixed the references.Xchange (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done a copy edit, and added some images. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Very fancy pics. Thanks for the edits.Xchange (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Burden of Proof for claims of lack of clarity

Does anyone have any evidence whatsoever that the ECD Ovonics minimum order policy is clear? If not, then the last sentence is not speculation or an opinion.Xchange (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It is you who continues to insert and reinsert a clearly biased statement with no support. Just because you are claiming a negative does not relieve you of the burden of supporting your position. You are violating Wikipedia rules on OR and NPOV edits. Please stop. You have reverted twice as I write this. Beware 3RR. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I encourage you to take the ideas behind your recent edit, research them and reinsert them in appropriately neutral language with proper references. I am not saying that your sentiment does not have merit, merely that you need to follow Wikipedia editing rules if you want to insert it into this article. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to conclude that something is not clear within the scope of Wiki rules? If a company fails to publicly post sales policies and fails to respond to inquiries, how can a claim that the policy is unclear be refuted?Xchange (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source has shown that the policy is unclear, stating that said policy is unclear in a Wikipedia article constitutes original research, which is prohibited. Even if something were clearly 100% correct, this prohibition would be in place. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says that Cobasys had a minimum sales order policy (ref Boschert). Then later says that there was a change of ownership. Major policy changes quite often occur after a change of ownership. I think it reasonable to state that we don't know what the new current policy is - otherwise some readers might assume that the old policy is still in force. We aren't doing any original research ourselves, merely stating where the boundary of our knowledge lies. Perhaps a slight rewording to say that the new owners have not stated their current sales policy and leave it at that.  Stepho  (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There are COUNTLESS things the new management has not said, but unless an RS reports one specific thing the new management has not said as being noteworthy, including that thing in this article would be OR. Do we know that the new owners have not stated their new sales policy? If so, how do we know it? Has someone researched all possible RSs? I state, again, that just because someone is stating a negative does not mean that statement is not subject to Wikipedia rule regarding OR and NPOV. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how a statement that begins "It is unclear whether.." can be labelled as anything other than speculation. This is an encyclopedia not a rumour mill. Equally I don't really see how to clarify the issue that is unclear unless you have an RS. Greglocock (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have requested input from an uninvolved admin to help clarify Wikipedia rules in this matter. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this revert; without sourcing, "unclear" is clearly speculation and a violation of WP:Verifiability and WP:CRYSTALBALL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I got a bit ahead of myself after I posted on your page and posted at the dispute resolution board as well, here. It might be interesting to see what other editors have to say on the matter. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The input from uninvolved editors seems pretty clear. Claims that something is "unclear" must be backed up with a reference from a "highly reliable source." Ebikeguy (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

New link for "US SEC Form 8-K, Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.". 2004-07-07. Retrieved 2007-08-08.

I was browsing today and noticed that the link to this 8-k, http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/Financial_Reports/form_8k/8k_mbi_patent_infringe_settlement_7july04.pdf, was dead for me. I went about a web search and believe I found the same information available at http://studio-5.financialcontent.com/edgar?accesscode=3287804000068 and http://investor.shareholder.com/ovonics/secfiling.cfm?filingID=32878-04-59. I generally just read wikipedia and don't edit, so I don't know policy on updating links for references. i hope adding this to the talk is reasonable and will help get the modification made. 68.5.188.27 (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Does Not "Need Attention by a Subject Matter Expert" from Wikiproject Automobiles

This tag had been up for a year and a half, and it was time for it to come down. The article is fully referenced with citations from subject matter experts. There is no reason to think that any member of Wikiproject Automobiles would have greater expertise in the subject than someone such as Sherry Boschert, who has done extensive research in the matter and is cited in the article. Of course, further expertise would be welcomed and appreciated, but there is no definitive need for such, given the article's current state. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)