GM bailout rant

[Genoz World]

I got a question for you all..........what company has the patent holding NOW that prevents BIGGER BATTERIES in vehicles? From what i heard, GM had it, then sold it to EXXON. who has it now?

I HAVE A FURTHER QUESTION. WHY CAN'T WE GET 45+MPG on modern day suv's??

who's stopping all this? why havent we made progress?

so..........for the finalization of this, whoever had the patent, let em go...................if it's NOT an auto manufacturer, let's clear the air, DID GM OWN THIS PATENT? i would love to know.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by hill

GM's board member York disagrees w/ you. He doesn't say US operations ~ he doesn't say shrinking market share ~ he doesn't say huge fixed costs ~ he doesn't say, 'well... Ford would be just as bad as us if..." . . . rather he mans up and says, "it was us, the board". He's the first to admit they all deserved to be fired ... and he followed up by quitting, when he couldn't get the others to grow brains (like selling Hummer back when there was still a chance, etc).

At least you seem to realize that York is not a current board member. He was put on the board by Kirk Kerkorian would bought a spot on the board by purchasing almost 10% of GM stock. York went into board room and basically said they were all idiots and it was going to be his way going forward. The board collectively have him the finger and when back to business. Kerkorian tried to gather support among other large shareholders to replace Wagoner and rest of the board. His attempt failed, York resigned and Kerkorian sold off his shares. York was on the board for 8 months.

Kerkorian tried a hostile take-over of Chrysler in the early 90's before Damlier bought them. He also tried to buy Chrysler from Damlier but lost the bid to Cerebus. Kerkorian is a man that seems to desperately want to run a car company.

[DanCar]

Originally Posted by Genoz World

I got a question for you all..........what company has the patent holding NOW that prevents BIGGER BATTERIES in vehicles? From what i heard, GM had it, then sold it to EXXON. who has it now?
... whoever had the patent, let em go...................if it's NOT an auto manufacturer, let's clear the air, DID GM OWN THIS PATENT? i would love to know.

Yes GM owned the patent. Then sold to Texaco now owned by Chevron thru a company called cobasys. They sued Toyota for the batteries in the Prius. Toyota agreed to keep the batteries small and other conditions. Toyota and other companies also paid $30 million for the lawsuit.
Cobasys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Genoz World]

DANCAR - if this is the case, i dont want any bailout for GM. they alone stopped the advancement of things that many people could have benefitted for.

this is such a ridiculous patent. kinda makes the same sense as the people who were supposed to oversee the wall street mess.

madness...................

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Genoz World

DANCAR - if this is the case, i dont want any bailout for GM. they alone stopped the advancement of things that many people could have benefitted for.

this is such a ridiculous patent. kinda makes the same sense as the people who were supposed to oversee the wall street mess.

madness...................

Genoz World, GM is not preventing the use of NiMH battery technology, Cobasys is. GM bought the patents and 1/2 of company manufacturing batteries when they were developing the EV1 program. When they discontinued the EV1 they had no use for NiMH batteries and sold their share of the company and the patents. GM actually used NiMH technology when they owned the patent rights. If you want to blame someone for sitting on NiMH technology blame Chevron.

The NiMH patent is a incredibly strong patent. It was a very new and unique battery chemistry that solved problems with other battery chemistries.

I believe you mean that it is ridiculous that patent owner could sit on the technology and not allow others to use it. Chevron would argue that they are not sitting on the technology or preventing others from using it. Rather that potential users aren't willing to pay their licensing fee.

[EJFB1029]

Interesting commentary, that I think sums a lot of whats going on in DC with the bailout, I don't like the Prius connection, because I think thats exactly the direction Detroit has to go for long term viability:

Big Three battle comes down to party politics
Senators carping about tax subsidies should look at plants in their backyard

COMMENTARY
By Ed Wallace
Business Week
updated 2:34 p.m. CT, Mon., Dec. 15, 2008
In the ongoing power struggle between Republicans and Democrats, Detroit is the latest, and possibly the bloodiest, battleground. And because it is a battle of ideologies with no apparent connection to pragmatic economic reality, the matter of whether the U.S. auto industry survives takes a backseat to which party gets its way.

That's because the two parties see the fate of Detroit as a watershed moment, the kind of event that could potentially redraw the political landscape forever. By refusing to bail out General Motors and Chrysler, Republicans see a way to end the last vestiges of unionism in America and the unions' longtime backing of the Democratic party — a political base the Democrats will fight tooth and claw to save. If neither side can win — if they destroy the American automobile industry in its entirety and if in doing so they set off a chain reaction that turns out to be the last straw for our shaky economic system — they don't care.

How can that be? Simple party politics. Because if these individuals bring down the American economy by destroying Detroit, they'll simply walk away from the disaster saying "It was the other guy's fault."

Somewhere along the way this debate seems to have overlooked the fact that Detroit, for all its blunders, is still a viable economic engine, providing jobs to millions and creating some of the world's best cars. For example, the best-selling vehicle in America, even in this downturn, is still Ford's F-Series truck, and second place goes to the Chevrolet Silverado. Even the Dodge Ram continues to hold a strong position in the Top 20 vehicle list, while sales of the Toyota Prius are down substantially with the fall-off in gasoline prices. (We assume that the Prius is the type of car the left wants Detroit to build.)

And speaking of Japanese cars, I hate to point out the obvious, but car sales in Japan are lower today than they were 15 years ago, down over 30 percent just last month. Yet you won't see the heads of the Japanese auto companies on the carpet in front of their government officials, being drilled with questions like, "Why don't you build cars the public wants to buy?"

What's amazing is that Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) is such a huge critic of using taxpayer money to bail out Detroit. Amazing because the state of Alabama has provided hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to lure foreign auto companies to build factories on its soil.

Of course, when Alabama gave Mercedes-Benz $253 million to build a factory there, or about $168,000 per job created, that was considered a good thing. When Honda considered building a new factory there, that was worth $158 million, and Hyundai's Southern site choice forced the state to cough up $234 million more. Again, these were considered wise investments because the promise was that they would create more jobs for the chronically underpaid Alabama workforce. However, in the summer of 2003, Mercedes brought in Polish workers on questionable B-1 work visas to expand the factory because they could be paid far less than the local workforce.

So you had Alabama gifting state tax dollars to Mercedes' factory, only to discover that some of the jobs it created went to much cheaper labor imported from Eastern Europe.

Look at Senator Bob Corker of (R-Tenn.). The former mayor of Chattanooga was one of those responsible for winning the new Volkswagen factory at a cost of $577 million in tax incentives. Moreover, Tennessee got that factory only because Alabama offered the Germans a mere $385 million.

Mississippi paid $284 million for a new Toyota plant; Kia got $324 million from Georgia. Texas had to fork over only $133 million for Toyota's Tundra plant in San Antonio, while Tennessee gave $197.6 million not for a new Nissan factory but simply so Nissan would move its American headquarters to Nashville. There are other factories — BMW in South Carolina, Nissan in Mississippi, and so on — but you get the point.

The Republican senators from these states see no problem whatsoever with paying to bring new automobile production to their states, and the media always quotes them gloating about how smart it is to spend that type of money because it creates jobs.

The reality is that there's no end to the tax largesse handed out to some of the most successful car companies in the world. And you know their names: Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW. The fact that many of these companies' brand-new, state-of-the-art American plants — nonunion plants, low cost-benefit plants — are also struggling seems to have escaped the notice of these same elected officials and the media.

Mercedes recently offered a buyout to its entire workforce in Alabama, and Hyundai has never gotten its Alabama factory up to full capacity. Toyota will not use its upcoming Mississippi factory to build its Highlander SUV, and Nissan is converting its factory in that state to build commercial vehicles. Toyota has been forced to shut its Texas truck plant because of scanty orders for the new Tundra, and so on. So Senator Shelby's statement that Detroit "doesn't innovate. They're a dinosaur," while his partner Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) brags about the "very large and vibrant automobile sector in Alabama," doesn't exactly ring true.

So we find that nonunion, low-cost, state-subsidized, state-of-the-art auto plants in America are having their fair share of problems, too. But according to Senate Republicans, the only part of the American car industry that isn't working is in Detroit.

Other governments aren't being so stingy — or mercenary. Sweden gave $3.5 billion to stabilize both Volvo and Saab on Dec. 10. Volkswagen has applied to tap into the bank bailout fund set up by Germany for that nation's troubled financial system — our Treasury and Fed may be compelled to offer similar help. And China just lent Chery Automotive $1.5 billion to continue operations.

That's right, other industrialized countries around the world will be stepping in to ensure that their own automobile industries will still be working when whatever financial downturn we are looking at is finally over. Moreover, they understand that the world's economy is precarious right now, so they aren't demanding that corporate jets be sold, they aren't demanding new business plans to save the individual companies, and they aren't publicly embarrassing the heads of Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, BMW, VW, Nissan, Renault, and others by demanding that they explain why their profits and sales have dropped suddenly. In the rest of the world, elected officials understand serious downturns in the economy and that the automotive industry is cyclical in nature.

As for Congress, shame on you for playing politics when so many jobs and, in many ways, the future of American manufacturing is at stake. But then again politics is all you know. Maybe you should let American carmakers get on with what they know how to do: build cars.

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
URL: Big Three battle comes down to party politics - Autos- msnbc.com

[jayman]

Well, with a crippling and prolonged global recession - some folks are even using the D word - would it really matter how much money we shovel to the car makers? They'll still lay off workers.

Who is seriously thinking of making a major investment in a new car right now? Nobody I know. So the cars will continue to sit in factory storage lots and dealer lots.

Unless we return to the "cheap" and reckless credit that got us into this mess, I see no easy or graceful way out of the recession. Diving back into reckless credit will just make the long-term problem that much worse

[DanCar]

Originally Posted by jhinton

...The NiMH patent is a incredibly strong patent. It was a very new and unique battery chemistry that solved problems with other battery chemistries. ...

Chevron doesn't own that patent. Chevron's "unique" idea is applying nimh batteries to cars. A weak patent in my non-expert opinion. Chevron owns "large" format nimh batteries patent.

[SageBrush]

Originally Posted by jayman

How much of that was manufacturing, how much of it was brain drain, how much of that was buying cheap terrorist oil?

When a large corporation shoves a stake through the back of domestic workers, opens up a plant in BFE, at a fraction of the wage and benefit cost, I find it highly ironic and hypocritical when that same company suddenly whines about the lack of Patriotism.

1++

[hill]

Originally Posted by jayman

Well, with a crippling and prolonged global recession - some folks are even using the D word - . . . . . . snip

'Depression' is just a word. The irony is that the D word got used back in the 1930's because the belief at the time was 'Depression' sounded better than recession. After all, recession means you're still on the way down ... whereas depression meant you've already reached bottom. So, what sounds better ... being at the bottom already? ... or being on the way down. With that take, we are hopefully at the depression.