Rick,
I agree that “The free market has failed.”
And I agree that the universities are not going to be the saviors of biochar. (Help a bit, but not lead.)
I disagree with most of the rest of what you wrote.
You present a classic capitalist model that puts money and profit first. And promoted the attitude that BIG profits are needed because there are big risks.
My opinions about how capitalism has changed since it origins in the 1700s until now (4 major phases) and about what should be changed to create a better capitalism in the 21st century, are in my book
“A Capitalist Carol” and the 14 essays in “Nehemiah Papers”. Info at www.capitalism21.org<www.capitalism21.org> The Papers book is now free as an e-book at www.lulu.com<www.lulu.com> and other sites.
In short, the free market has failed (I credit that line to you.) But patents are not going to fix it. Holding back information because of the prospect to make a financial killing is bad for development.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<www.drtlud.com>
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com <biochar@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 10:53 PM
To: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [biochar] What are YOUR Plans for International Compost Awareness Week
Steven,
Government mandates of course can make any technology happen. In California, I expect they will fully use universities to figure out the value of biochar, despite it already being known. Problem in California, is meeting emission specs with biochar machines….. may never happen.
But let’s agree on one thing, the free market has failed. (Which is in fact why governments should exist and intervene). Or biochar would have happened at large scale given its compelling value proposition.
The facts are, having biochar become a university publish fest has made it really hard to justify investments, where information is a commodity, when no patent protection is possible. I don’t think academics understand this point, do you?
And I can tell you from supporting the major waste management companies, no one has heard of biochar. The largest companies that have the feedstock and the markets and the capital to make it happen, never heard of it! Think about perhaps ten thousand publications, the decision makers have not read all those papers. Surprise! (Actually, no surprise). So why are we writing them?
My understanding is the patent laws were created for a reason, to enable new industries to blossom.. Encourage investment, give innovators a head start.. An opportunity entirely circumvented by the biochar academics in their current form, publish to show how smart you are, put yourself at the top of Maslow’s heierarchy, (boy, it must feel good to be smarter than everyone while receiving a paycheck), and their Universities failure to manage the IP created? (The entrepreneurs don’t get a paycheck until they make money, oops, who are these people who spend their own money while working for free? Ooh lets get a university job!
Academics have failed us…. If you publish an article, or you write a book, and you don’t file a patent, and you don’t have an incubator to raise money progress your IP, you have failed us , and you have handicapped biochar from being part of saving the human race from extinction by using free market economics…. You should be embarrassed, because you are in fact not very smart, and are part of the problem.
Rick Wilson
On Mar 7, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Stephen Joseph joey.stephen@gmail.com<mailto:joey.stephen@gmail.com> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
Hi Rick
I am not disagreeing with you re what is required to raise venture capital in California but it is interesting in other countries biochar is getting green capital without patents just solid business plans. You know I was the CEO of a Silicon Valley funded Australian company commercialising a biochar mineral complex so i do understand the rules.
Happily I am helping small companies (not running companies myself) who are making a small impact. But the big issue in Australia is state based EPA approvals and that needs lots of peer reviewed literature and independent testing. At present my strategy is to develop and get approved an Australian standard.
Once we have a draft Australian standard that I am working on with a team of industry players in this space I will circulate to the list for comments.
Producing a standard is a lot of work and it will probably take a lot of luck and another 2 years hard work to get it approved.
Regards
Stephen
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Rick Wilson rick012@yahoo.com<mailto:rick012@yahoo.com> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
Stephen (you know I have a green card having lived in Australia). No the US is not the center of the world, but California is!! (Economy 2X Australia). And may be the light to address climate change. (I live in California)
Government is one way to address climate change. Mandates. The problem is the politics in the US are bundled. You have to choose a side. One side, wants to ban abortion, and does not think we need to act on climate change. The other side wants to act on climate change, and recognizes a women’s right to choose. So I have discounted the US ability to lead the world to address the problem at any time soon.
So you have Silicon Valley. This is where I am from (having been the CEO there, and currently the chairman of a company). To raise money, you need a competitive advantage. Patents are the top of the list. For biochar, but with so many academic publications, everyone knows everything. I believe the academics want biochar to happen. But they have mismanaged the IP, commoditized it because they don’t understand the commercial world, and have the wrong incentives, so no one will invest in a big way. You can’t walk into a major university with significant IP on biochar and take a license, and go out and raise money, because it does not exist. And, for every 20 faculty members studying biochar, perhaps there is one person sophisticated enough to raise venture money. So you have a skill gap.
I have hope for the waste management companies. Singularly they can make biochar happen. The have the feedstock, the sites to deploy capacity, the financial resources. Bill Gates is the largest investor in Republic Services whom’ I support, for a reason.
Rick
On Mar 4, 2019, at 8:26 AM, tmiles@trmiles.com<mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
Stephen,
The US uses similar procedures to validatethe safety and efficacy of products. For example, the American Association of Plant Food Control Officials, which sets the standards that most states follow for fertilizers and soil amendments, will not consider new or modified product definitions or standards unless the proposal is accompanied by at least three peer-reviewed papers. The proposal is then reviewed by the appropriate technical committee in a two year process.
Tom
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 2:50 AM
To: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [biochar] What are YOUR Plans for International Compost Awareness Week
Rick
In Australia you need EPA approval to make and sell biochars. they rely on Universities and other Goverment research organisations to validate the safety and efficacy. In China the governmet looks for research institues to guide them with policy and practice/codes. Well the EU is a totally different story.
So yes early adopters are really important but you have to work with the young post grads to make sure they do relevant and timely research
Sorry the USA is not the centre of the Universe.
Regards
Stephen
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:11 PM Rick Wilson rick012@yahoo.com<mailto:rick012@yahoo.com> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
Tom, I don’t believe that Universities are the gold standard of research. Here is why.
Universities complete much of their research with graduate students who are there to learn. Learning = making mistakes, how they learn. Third party laboratories, as an alternative, have six sigma processes in place to insure the integrity of their results. University results carry a larger uncertainty.
Universities do not necessarily know what the questions are that need to be answered. A practitioner, who has to deal with the constraints of progressing a particular practice, has a unique view on the constraints, and the questions that need to be answered. Universities deal in a theoretical world, commercial people deal with the real world.
Consider the case study of Cool Planet. They decided they needed more university validation, too many variables, too many questions, which is when I left. Years later, lots of university trials, lots of money spent, not a lot of sales. Junior people are now Vice Presidents, clearly they are struggling.
I’ve learned that someone who buys biochar really does not care about what Universities think. There are books written about the technology adoption curve. It’s the early adopters that need to be appeased, not a university. So before you think a university needs to be involved you should first seek out early adopters and ask them what they want… And I can tell you, to make a sale, what they care about, is that some commercial entitty that they know and trust, have tried a particularly practice, and can validate that it works. At the stage of imminent inflection of commercialization, universities don’t matter.
Biochar is now outside of the remit of the universities. If we keep drawing it back to universities, it will never happen.
Sorry.
Rick