THE CHEMICAL WORLD THIS WEEK
was a tangential thermal reactor, a new design approach to the problem of injecting air into a vehicle's exhaust for more complete combustion of gases. Another is a fast warmup catalyst converter, which would be located near the engine and used during warmup to help reduce emissions. IIEC has set its targets in terms of emissions. It wants to reach hydrocarbon emission of 65 p.p.m. (1970 U.S. standard is 180) and carbon monoxide emission of 0.3% by volume (1970 U.S. standard is 1.0%). Target for nitrogen oxides is 175 p.p.m., representing an 85 to 90% reduction from present emission levels. The LNG-powered 1968 Ford-one of four fleet vehicles under test by San Diego Gas & Electric Co.—has logged almost 50,000 miles. LNG-fueled vehicles should be particularly suited to fleet operations, San Diego Gas & Electric says. Power performance is comparable to gasoline as is cost of operation. Hydrocarbon emissions at the start of the 50,000-mile test were 118 p.p.m., the company says, compared to an average of 225 for 1968 autos operating on gasoline and equipped with smog-control devices. Carbon monoxide emission was 0.17%, compared to 1.0% for the 1968 autos. ROYALTIES:
Who Owns Gatorade? An intriguing tale involving patents, royalties, trademarks, and transactions rising out of research that went into development of a thirst-quenching drink is stirring some unrest on the University of Florida campus. The controversy bears watching by other Thirst quencher A lemon-lime replenisher of body fluids
universities as an example of what can happen when policies regarding ownership of new ideas are unclear, undeveloped, or misunderstood. The drink is called "Gatorade." Stokely-Van Camp produces it for football teams and is launching a promotional program aimed at the general consumer. The question is who owns the rights to Gatorade: the scientist involved, the university, the Federal Government, or Stokely. Apparently the courts will decide. Gatorade is the result of ideas stemming from research done by Dr. James Robert Cade, a professor of renal medicine at the university's medical school. Much, if not all, of Dr. Cade's work at the university was performed under two federal grants. One grant was a six-year development award of $146,259 from the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases. It expired last year. The other, for $22,950, came from the Institute of General Medical Sciences and runs out next year. Some of this research involved the physiological action of the salt-regulating hormone aldosterone. The drink is for all practical purposes a lemonlime flavored replenisher of body fluids. Stokely describes it as a noncarbonated water solution of sodium and potassium chloride, sodium and potassium orthophosphate, sodium bicarbonate, glucose, and flavoring. The drink is isotonic and is therefore absorbed into the blood stream about 12 times faster than water. University of Florida teams have used it since 1965. But the events that led up to commercial development of Gatorade have thrown the state of Florida into a mild state of puzzled outrage. The state wants to know why the university allowed so profitable a commodity to slip away without realizing any royalties. Apparently, all Florida-bound income is going to Dr. Cade and a corporation he formed to manufacture Gatorade, which he registered as a trademark in 1967. Dr. Cade says he sold the trademark to Stokely under an arrangement whereby his corporation would get a share of the profits. In Washington, Charles B. Brown, director of the patents office for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, says his office is trying to solve the problem. "We are reviewing the matter to determine whether or not any action was taken inconsistent with Cade's obligation to HEW under the grants," he says. "We don't know what rights Cade transferred to Stokely, and we don't know what specific patent right Stokely is claiming." Queried by C&EN as to the nature of its arrangement with Dr. Cade, Stokely would make no comment.
FOREIGN TRADE:
New Lease on ASP Sen. Vance Hartke (D.-Ind.), a member of the Senate finance and commerce committees, gazed into his crystal ball last week and predicted that the U.S. chemical industry might fare better under the incoming administration than it did with the departing one. The Congressional trade expert said that the Nixon Administration will probably not ask Congress to do away with the American Selling Price system of valuation on benzenoid imports as sought by the Johnson Administration's trade negotiators. At the same time, Sen. Hartke predicted that the Administration's curbs on foreign investments by U.S. companies will be thrown out early in the Nixon Administration. "These restrictions have proven self-defeating and, if continued, can only compound rather than lessen our balance of payments difficulties," he told a Manufacturing Chemists Association forum luncheon. Noting that the U.S. chemical industry opposed the ASP legislation, Sen. Hartke said, "It is hard for an elected official to propose or support legislation whose alleged beneficiaries claim it will put them out of business." However, he added, if the new administration does go ahead with the ASP package, it would get nowhere. "My guess is it would not get out of the House and I guarantee it won't get out of the Senate." One of the key factors in Sen. Hartke's assessment of Congressional attitude is Senate Concurrent Resolution 100. This resolution said in effect that trade negotiators should not exceed their authority granted under the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. They did exceed their authority with the ASP package, he said. All will not be roses, though. "Even without the removal of the ASP package, the chemical industry will have to brace itself for more import competition over the next four years," Sen. Hartke warned. Striking out at foreign charges of protectionism in the U.S., the outspoken Senator said that it is "hypocritical for European countries and Japan to protest legislation in the U.S., while they go on their merry ways increasing their own protectionism in various forms." Despite "unfair trade practices" and so-called nontariff barriers, Sen. Hartke said that he was "optimistic that with continuing pressure from Congress, the next administration will be realistic about our international competitive position, at least to the extent of providing American industry with the equal opportunity to meet foreign competition."
