wb9k
10 kW
Press release is attached.View attachment A123 acquires Leyden assets final.pdf
A123 Systems
Jeff Kessen
734.772.0345
jkessen@a123systems.com
A123 Systems Acquires Key Battery Technology from Leyden Energy
Deal Substantially Broadens the Technology Portfolio of A123
Livonia, Mich. – June 16, 2014—A123 Systems LLC, a developer and manufacturer of advanced lithium-ion batteries and systems, today announced its completion of a transaction to acquire certain intellectual property and technical staff of Leyden Energy. Leyden’s intellectual property in battery materials covering lithium titanate (LTO) and non-flammable electrolyte developments were acquired for an undisclosed amount. As a part of the deal, key technical staff of Leyden Energy have also agreed to join A123 Systems’ R&D organization.
Leyden is the recent recipient of significant development funding from United States Advanced Battery Consortium LLC (USABC), an organization whose members include Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company and General Motors. Under that program, Leyden achieved outstanding progress on development of its technology for micro-hybrid applications in the automotive market. In particular, the inherent LTO properties of long cycle life and exceptional power capability were extended to operate over a substantially wider temperature range.
The acquisition of Leyden’s technology in this field complements the lithium iron phosphate (LFP) materials portfolio that A123 commercialized nearly a decade ago under the Nanophosphate® trade name. Recently, the A123 research and development organization has also extended the high power capability of its LFP-based materials under the UltraPhosphate™ trade name. Taken together, these developments and the acquisition of Leyden’s intellectual property demonstrate A123’s strong commitment to meeting and exceeding the technical requirements of micro-hybrid applications around the world.
“As the world’s OEMs continue to invest more effort in the development of their respective micro-hybrid systems, the global diversity of requirements is growing rapidly. By expanding our technology portfolio for this fast-growing market, A123 now has the right solution for nearly every micro-hybrid program worldwide” said Jason Forcier, CEO of A123 Systems. “We are pleased to welcome the Leyden Energy scientists to A123 and look forward to further development in each segment of our expanded portfolio.”
About A123 Systems
A123 Systems LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Wanxiang Group, is a leading developer and manufacturer of advanced lithium-ion batteries and energy storage systems for transportation and other commercial and industrial applications. The company’s proprietary Nanophosphate® lithium iron phosphate technology is built on novel nanoscale materials initially developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is designed to deliver high power and energy density, increased safety and extended life. A123 leverages breakthrough technology and expert system integration capabilities to enable next-generation products for its customers globally. For more information, please visit http://www.a123systems.com.
Ain't that the truth brother! Does that extend to your body too? I mean I understand that 90% of the DNA by mole is microbial, all mostly benign and necessary for life. Is the human mind a wholly owned subsidiary of the microbe? So isn't all mind activity, including so called "intellectual property" the sole and exclusive right of the microbe? Who's looking out for their rights in the human mind judicial system?liveforphysics said:Soon peoples delusions that information can be 'property' will be washed away. The parasites related to that harm (lawyers etc) will find productive alternative activities. We are living at the tipping point of people embracing reality. The very phrase "IP" will phase out of use, and when it is used, it will carry the appropriate level of negative connotation the harmful delusional concept should illicit.
liveforphysics said:Soon peoples delusions that information can be 'property' will be washed away. The parasites related to that harm (lawyers etc) will find productive alternative activities.
We are living at the tipping point of people embracing reality. The very phrase "IP" will phase out of use, and when it is used, it will carry the appropriate level of negative connotation the harmful delusional concept should illicit.
wb9k said:Do you think all IP is evil? How so?
oatnet said:
wb9k said:So I'll ask again, because "IP" is a pretty broad concept that includes not only technical inventions, but works of authorship and the like. Should authors not be paid for the books they write and have the exclusive right to do so? Authors are not inspired to write due to copywrite laws used in the book-trade industry. Creating and sharing stories obviously predates lawyers battling over there delusions. Or should anybody be able to print the exact same words out once the author is done writing, sell them for a profit, and tell the author to go pound sand because "those words don't belong to him"? You don't have to own a language to own the contents of a book--it's not the same thing. Is that legal concept (and it is a long-established one) a delusion? If you believe it has ever been violated, then you must agree that the belief that someone writing down words on paper and calling it a law does not effect the capabilities of someone to relay a story they read or perhaps even just the essence of the story to others, as all observations (including observing ink on paper) someone experiences is what composes the reality and thought process that determine our actions. Fortunately, it is impossible by nature that people can steal someones story without also destroying all consciousnesses with awareness of the content of the story, along with all all forms of physical/electric copies. Good story tellers and sages have been a respected and appreciated part of humanity for a conservative 100,000years in Native Australian cultures. I believe the argument that good authors create due to someones delusions of belief that writing something down in a lawbook in anyway restricts the actions of others who may wish to also share the story with others. That is exclusively determined by each individual beings choosing to share data or not share data. I have not seen evidence to convince me any known arrangement of ink on paper in the pages of books that I can only assume are never even viewed by the overwhelming majority of the population have any magical power that imposes some type of force-field or something that prevents peoples actions from being determined only by the choices those people choose to make. My evidence to support this claim is copious. Why do police still write traffic tickets if they have clearly posted speed signs are regular intervals? Murder has an overabundance of laws and punishments people in most all countries and all cultures around the world (with the exceedingly bizarre exception of piling on greater and greater technology killing devices towards the small portion of culture that also teaches and regularly does mock-practicing murder and has a culture that is oddly not expected to obey laws, even as big as murder if you dress the people in uniforms first.)
This is how I get my books. I get a copy of it on my phone at no expense with a few clicks. It stole nobodies copy of the book, including the artists. What that did was make blocks of data in my phone match a pattern that it was shown block at a time how to match. Then I can view that data with an .epub reader at my leisure. If I read the book and find it was excellent, I generously donate directly to the author. You can listen to Cory Docrow about how much better this non-delusion-based model works out for authors like himself who was making a fraction of the money using conventional publishers. Radiohead did this with there music album releases, and made some radical amount more money than Sony BMG had ever paid them for any of the previous albums.
I have to say the use of Jefferson's comments seems like a stretch, since we're talking about a whole lot more than just some guy saying something and then claiming ownership of the "idea". An actual working invention which may have taken years and loads of money to develop surely can have at least some ownership claimed by somebody. Or not? No, you can't have ownership of it because it's a thought. The moment someone else has awareness of the thought, it has then been spread, and did nothing to remove it from the person or device that shared it with them. Thoughts are inherently not able to be restricted from spreading if you choose to share them in some way. Fortunately, you have the ultimate and exclusive thought protection system given to you already in your own mind, you can choose not to share a thought if you wish to protect it and perfectly limit it's distribution. It is an odd wide-spread group delusion held in the minds of lawmakers and lawyers that offer the consumption of resources in exchange for occasional harm-causing in the individuals choosing to freely share.
Now when it comes to patenting the discovery of something in nature, like the human genome, I have a problem with that becoming the exclusive property of anyone. Techniques for using it is one thing, but the genome itself belongs to everyone. It also bothers me that the FCC auctions off the rights to use certain portions of the radio spectrum. They should be able to regulate the airwaves, but not sell them. It is another delusion that the FCC has any form of dominion over the states of electro-magnetic fields. I can assure you from seeing some some high-end DIY quad-copter FPV systems that no matter how many times they write "500mW maxium RF power" on video transmitters, you can rest assured 10-20W RF signal amplifiers still function. Yet to claim domain over RF seems less preposterous and less delusional than claiming domain over controlling thoughts/ideas.
So while I agree that IP (or IP-like) concepts have been stretched to incredulous lengths at times, I can't agree that the concept of IP is blanketly "delusional", or results only in harm and evil. Authors and composers--and inventors, for that matter--have a right to a living, but your broad argument relegates all of them to the ranks of amateurs. I am at peace agreeing to disagree with you.
flathill said:They are only after the Dupont patent that Leyden fully acquired that allows long life at high temps
Leyden has aways been a front company strategically owned by the Chinese. By setting up in the US they were able to get the Dupont patent.
A123 also has tech to enable low temp operation. The specific chemistry is irrelevant. A123 can make NCA/NCM/LTO/
They are shooting for the holy grail: Long life at high temp and high charge and full power at low temp and no damage during charging at low temp, aka NO active cooling required. The Leaf battery clearly can't do it but I'm guessing A123 might pull it off now that we have a way to almost fully model cell life with super accurate/precision internal resistance measurements......Even if the cell energy density is lower, if the battery is capable of passive cooling, then in-total, the energy density of the battery pack will be higher
Imagine how much lighter and smaller a Tesla pack would be without all the copper tubes and coolant and pumps and heat exchangers and active flap actuators and on and on
Elon (my personal hero/role model for years) made the choice to give away his IP. Spreading the EV revolution is more important to him than making money at this point, so he benefits more from his IP by giving it away. This is different from him saying he never should have had IP at all.flathill said:We are just so excited about the coming revolution, that is now in full effect thanks to Elon, that we are infecting every thread with talk of IP
You may do this, most people will not, as they are in it for themselves at the expense of everyone else. I actively seek to NOT profit at the expense of others, but most people are gleeful when they get back too much change at the supermarket. The closer a human is to that survive/not survive line, the less s/he can afford to put civility first.LFP said:If I read the book and find it was excellent, I generously donate directly to the author.
oatnet said:Elon (my personal hero/role model for years) made the choice to give away his IP. Spreading the EV revolution is more important to him than making money at this point, so he benefits more from his IP by giving it away. This is different from him saying he never should have had IP at all.flathill said:We are just so excited about the coming revolution, that is now in full effect thanks to Elon, that we are infecting every thread with talk of IP
You may do this, most people will not, as they are in it for themselves at the expense of everyone else. I actively seek to NOT profit at the expense of others, but most people are gleeful when they get back too much change at the supermarket. The closer a human is to that survive/not survive line, the less s/he can afford to put civility first.LFP said:If I read the book and find it was excellent, I generously donate directly to the author.
Civilization is an affectation of the affluent. The human animal is really no different from other animal, looking to consume others to fuel our own survival. It's not fair, but nature is cruel. Human society is always one minor crisis away from a "Lord of the Flies" moment, I could quote a dozen examples from the past year where the social contract has lapsed and humanity is revealed for its true nature. The structures you wish torn down, like IP and lawyers, are part of the very substance of the social contract that enables civility.
While I agree that you propose a wonderful Utopian (Socialist?) ideal, it is not a possibility for human society, and smacks of a psychological state called "magical thinking". I agree that large corporate entities are flogging the IP system in an idiotic and damaging fashion, but I think the problem has far more to do with large corporations than it does with IP. I am far more worried about the ability for corporations ability to buy candidates with unlimited contributions, and enable a whole host of abuses of the individual, than I am about the specific abuse via IP.
-JD
liveforphysics said:... it is delusion and exclusively delusion to believe arrangements of droplets of ink on paper have some mystical power that in any way limits or restricts the capacity for people to share data. ).
oatnet said:Elon (my personal hero/role model for years) made the choice to give away his IP. Spreading the EV revolution is more important to him than making money at this point, so he benefits more from his IP by giving it away. This is different from him saying he never should have had IP at all.flathill said:We are just so excited about the coming revolution, that is now in full effect thanks to Elon, that we are infecting every thread with talk of IP
flathill said:In other words, Elon is saying, in a better world, he never should have had IP at all.
No ..thats not possible.liveforphysics said:We do live in a better world. .
liveforphysics said:You are all welcome to put as much faith in "IP" concepts as you choose.
No amount of faith makes your delusion choices real.