If the MIT technology described in this story actually existed, its effects on the world population would be incalculable. A third of the worlds population is sustained by fertilizer produced by the Haber process. Half the nitrogen in your body was "fixed" (pulled out of the air) in this way. Half a billion tons of ammonia is made in this way each year. I recommend this article on the hundred year history of the Haber-Bosch process: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/03/fritz-haber-f....My point though is this. Even if these MIT PhD's don't understand marketing and can't raise enough to keep their company afloat, this hypothetical technology would be worth many many billions of dollars to a deep-pocketed chemical supply company. So the comparison is a bit lopsided.
amirhirsch|12 years ago
Even if a technology company can raise funding and grants, sustainable revenue from licensing or contracts should be the first priority for the company or it won't be able to stay together.
tanzam75|12 years ago
The technology is 20 years ahead of the need, or it takes 20 years to work out the kinks in the process. So the patent expires just as it becomes valuable.
But once the patent expires, no company can get a sustainable advantage. Thus, the net incremental producer surplus gets competed down to zero. However, consumer surplus is increased by zillions of dollars, because the technology has effectively been "donated" to humanity through patent expiration.
But this would be a terrible story for VCs, because they didn't make any money off of it. Instead, 100% of the benefits went to humanity.
alexrson|12 years ago