INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
972
Vol. 15, No. 9
T h e Appraisal of Chemical Invention‘ By D. B. Keyes U. S.
INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL Co.,NEWYORK,N.
I
NVENTORS do not have an easy time when they undertake to sell their inventions to a corporation. The inventor can appraise his process as easily and as accurately as the corporation, once he understands the principles of such an analysis, and this appraisal would be of great help to him in his work. It has been the writer’s privilege to investigate a great many chemical inventions, and ideas developed by this experience may be of interest to the reader. The new process is a financial gamble, no matter how glorious its future may seem to the inventor. The agent of capital confines his investigation to two fundamental questions-what is the financial risk, and what is the probable financial return?
PATENT SITUATION The corporation buys not only an idea, but also protection for the idea. An idea that any competitor may appropriate later and use is of very little value. The only legal monopoly recognized by the United States is a patent monopoly. The inventor should have a strong patent situation to sell as well as his process. A patent protects the inventor against the unscrupulous manufacturer who wishes to appropriate the idea; and a patent also protects the corporation against the unjust claims of a misguided inventor who believes he has been robbed. It is much more satisfactory for both sides to have the invention patented. The appraisal of a patent, as indicated below, will give in itself a fairly clear idea of the value of the process. Many things must be looked for in a patent situation, but only the common weak points will be described here. Often the patent lawyer who drew up the patent application knew no chemistry and the inventor knew no patent law-a disastrous combination. The patent claims may be too narrow. Very few inventors realize a t once the full meaning of their invention, and the extent of its application. Broad and accurate patent claims are the result of extensive research work and thought. There are many ways in which the patent claims can be narrow, two of which are very common. The first is the long claim which is full of detailed description. Value and length of claims vary with the inverse ratio of one another. The second common fault is the failure to claim the use of chemical types in a process in contrast to specific chemicals. In a patent on a process using chlorine it would be well to claim the use of halogens, providing they would work. In case the chlorine was used as an oxidizer, other oxidizing agents should be tried, and if they also work claims covering oxidizing agents should be added. Misstatements should be looked for in the patent specification, because they may render the patent invalid. Misstatements in theory are not important, but misstatements in fact caused by careless research work or lack of understanding between lawyer and inventor are fatal. No essential detail should be concealed. Several well-known United States patents taken out by foreigners have proved to be valueless because important features were left out; the inventors expected to cheat the public and at the same time keep their monopoly. Ample ranges of temperature, concentration, and pressure must be specified, otherwise a competitor may get a foothold and seize profits that do not belong to him. Care must be taken not to claim too much, as it is sometimes found that the example worked out is an 1
Received April 28, 1923.
31.
exception and not one of a series. Some lawyers try to crowd into a few claims the entire invention, but it is a very narrow invention that can be treated adequately in this manner. The patent or patents should contain a clear statement of just what the inventor has produced, and the form should be in accordance with good patent law practice. The general patent situation must be examined as well as the patent. A patent may be valid and cover accurately a worthwhile invention and still be of little value. It may be an improvement on a process patented by someone else, A valid patent owned by one oil company, covering an improvement on the cracking process owned and patented by another oil company, cannot be used by the former without the permisdion of the latter. It is also true that the second company cannot use this improvement, but it can operate its own and probably can acquire the improvement for a comparatively small sum. A thorough literature search will disclose this condition. Another case that frequently occurs. The inventor has a valid basic patent covering his process, but his process is dependent upon a raw material whose process of manufacture is covered by a patent controlled by some one else. The inventor has two choices-he can either invent a new and better process of manufacture of this raw material, or he can come to some agreement with the owner of the patent. If he does nothing the value of his invention is small. In Canada at present, one concern controls the patents on the practical means of synthesizing acetaldehyde. It would be unwise for another Canadian concern to pay a large sum for a process involving the use of large amounts of acetaldehyde before finding out what arrangements could be made with the manufacturers of this uncommon raw material. Quite often the sole manufacturer of a patent-protected chemical is very fair and sensible, showing no tendency to gouge the buyer, but this is not always the case. Another type of a weak patent situation is common. The inventor has produced a chemical for which there is only one buyer. THEPROCESS The economics of the process is of course as important as the patent situation. RAW MATERIAL-The raw material should be cheap and standard in price. Chemicals made from caustic alkali, sulfuric acid, alcohol, etc., find more favor with the chemical manufacturers than chemicals made from phenyl hydrazine, ethylene glycol, diacetone alcohol, etc. The same argument applies to raw materials that are constantly varying in price. Even such stable commodities as corn vary so much in price that a t times acetone and butyl alcohol, which are made from this material, are not very profitable. The raw material must be easily available and not widely scattered. YIELDS-Yields or efficiency figures should be scrutinized with great care in order to find out exactly what they signify. Conversion factors and over-all yields should be clearly differentiated. The former is not necessarily important, as a low factor may signify that the remainder goes through untouched and can be sent through again a t a very small cost. Figures should be given based on the most costly raw material. In fact, the yields must be calculated on each raw material in order to estimate the total cost. A large allowance for possible inaccuracy in yields should be made in every case.
’
September, 1923
I,VDCSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
APpAuTus-The inventor should be in a position to show the process in operation, but not necessarily on a commercial scale. The strongest sales argument possible is a working successful process. The corporation agent wants to see the facts with his own eyes. He wants to take his own data and possibly operate the process himself. Some apparatus just beyond the laboratory scale is all that is necessary to convince one of the probable yields and to give a fair idea of costs. Data showing yields of previous similar processes are worth having. The time necessary for the whole operation should be considered. It is difficult to predict the performance of large-scale, standard apparatus using a new process from laboratory results, and i t is impossible to predict what a new and novel apparatus is going to do when enlarged appreciably. The new invention approaches perfection from the practical standpoint if the separate steps are well known and can be carried out in standard apparatus. One of the best ways to consider the practicability of a process and an apparatus is to consider them from the operator’s viewpoint. Picture each operation in the mind and look for trouble. The general manager of a plant once insisted that a fractionating column should be cut in two parts because it seemed so tall that repairs would be difficult. The column was built as he directed and the f i s t repairs were made on the bottom plate of the bottom section. His opinion was justified. Complicated and delicate apparatus should never be connected directly with a crude, rough-going apparatus; the delicate mechanism will soon be thrown out of operation. The apparatus should have “universal joints” or reservoirs between separate operations in order to take up temporary “slack.” Low-speed machines are usually preferable to those of high speed. The great question of whether to use men or machinery is very complicated. It is best to start with men and slowly replace them with thoroughly tested machinery. Unfortunately, there is little literature a t present that will guide one in the proper selection of chemical apparatus. Experience alone must be relied on when it comes to criticizing an apparatus layout. BY-PRODUCTSAND MATERIALS-By-products should be closely scrutinized, not only for their market conditions or commercial value, but also for the cost of disposal if they are valueless. State laws concerning industrial waste disposal are growing more numerous and more rigid, and the subject is attracting national interest. Inside the plant the by-products, or the materials in operation, may cause trouble due to a corrosive, or highly poisonous character. Trouble means added cost. The men operating a phosgene plant must be paid more than those operating a rock crusher. In a dyeing operation an attempt was made to replace acetic acid with formic acid; it failed because of the added cost of handling the formic acid. Any material in the process that has a tendency to gum up the operation and break up the continuity should be carefully considered, because shutdowns, delays, and repairs often cost much more than raw materials. A certain process required the multiple effect evaporation of a sirup. The evaporators would run continuously for sixteen hours on this material and then had to be shut down for cleaning. The cleaning required five or six hours. This time should be added to the sixteen hours in any cost calculations. PRODUCT I n considering the product, the first question is whether it is old or new. I f the product is old and standard, the estimation of its probable market is much simpler than if the product is new and unique. The sales promotion and development of a new chemical is a costly and hazardous undertaking. Advertising applied to chemicals is still in a very crude state-one needs only to glance over the pages of a chemical trade journal to appreciate this fact. It is not unusual to find that a new
973
chemical product was visualized or invented in ten minutes, that it took ten months to put it on a production scale, and ten years to obtain a satisfactory market for it. Ethyl acetoacetate has been known to chemists for fifty years; about three years ago a new and better method was invented for its manufacture; a year later it was manufactured for the first time in a semicommercial unit in this country; but it was only recently that this well-known chemical found a real market here. The inventor who has a process for the synthesis of glycerol will receive more attention than the inventor of a process for the synthesis of ethylene glycol. The specifications of the product are often vital, a fraction of one per cent of certain impurities may cut the value of the product in half. Ethyl alcohol free from water is entirely different in its properties from a 96 per cent ethyl alcohol. A small percentage of sodium or potassium in metallic magnesium ruins the latter’s resistance to corrosion. Cases also occur in which the so-called impurity has been found to be absolutely necessary; alloys are good illustrations. Some products sell well only during certain seasons of the year. This means added cost of storage and investment, and should be carefully investigated. Market conditions for the particular product may show a definite trend. Production figures and prices over several years should be known. More consideration is necessary if the probable competitor’s chief product is this chemical, than if this chemical is only one product among many manufactured by the competitor. The question is-what resistance will there be to the corporation’s entry into the field? The manufacturers of potash in America have found out how much the foreign producers valued the American market, and the lengths they would go to keep it. Before approaching a corporation an inventor should know the corporation’s field of activity. There is small chance of the corporation taking up some invention that is only remotely connected with its business. Transportation requirements for the particular chemical are of interest. Inflammable liquids, poisons, and very valuable materials, for example, have their special transportation costs. Oftentimes the product is subject to specific laws and regulations. This red tape means added cost. The manufacturer of industrial alcohol is subjected to every indignity known to man and the customer must pay for this foolishness, even though alcohol is one of the three greatest raw materials used in the chemical industry. The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce announces the appointment of Ralph H. Ackerman as commercial attache a t Santiago, Chile. Mr. Ackerman, who has been chief of the Latin-American Division of the bureau for nearly two years, is planning to leave Washington for his new post about September 1. Mr. Ackerman has been closely associated with Latin-American trade for many years. He was for some time a representative in Argentina of the Southern Railroad System, and later represented numerous manufacturers in Buenos Aires. Subsequent to this he had wide experience as manager of export commission houses in New York and Philadelphia. His extensive knowledge of the Latin-American republics and of the trade problems presented by them has been gained through long residence in those countries and close association with their people. The personnel of the field expedition that is to investigate rubber possibilities in the Philippines, in behalf of the Department of Commerce, is as follows: C. F. Vance, of Troy, Ohio, Special Agent, is in charge of the expedition. 31r. S’ance has had fifteen years’ experience in the Philippines and is thoroughly conversant with the small rubber plantation situation in the islands. N r . S‘ance will be assisted by -41ex H. hluzzal, of Carpinteria, Calif., a practical rubber plantation man who has for many years been connected with the Goodyear plantations in Sumatra; by John P. Bushnell, of IVashington, D. C . , Assistant Trade Commissioner of the Department of Commerce, who has been connected with rubber investigation activities of the department since its inception; and by Mark Baldwin of the Bureau of Soils, Department of .Agriculture
