ITT gradually absorbed the entire project. All related patents were assigned to ITT as success was achieved in steady steps. While steady progress was being achieved at a modest cost (examine the photographs), lTT was being influenced by powerful professionally hired "opinion makers" to drop fusion research. Suddenly even Wall Street analysts were publishing their "concerns" for ITT and its absorption of the Farnsworth subsidiary. Farnsworth himself was made the focus of every corporate death-word. These outlandish accusations indelibly remain in newspapers from the time period.
...
ITT had formally and publicly stated that the Fusor was a "deadend". Farnsworth thought that since this was their attitude, he might have a try at reobtaining his patents. He therefore contacted ITT and honestly announced his intentions. The answer was negative and impersonal ... a curious response for a device which was a "dead-end"... given to such an eminent personage whose inventions maintain the entire ITT operation to this day.
...
In quick successions, ITT asserted its complete ownership of all Fusor applications in the future. ITT warned Farnsworth that it would dominate all Fusor research forever ... despite its "unfeasibility". ITT then cut all formal financial ties with Farnsworth and left him virtually bankrupt. ITT now holds the Farnsworth patents ... and bears the social debt of responsibility for suppressing Fusor technology.
ITT's supression of IEC fusion
ITT's supression of IEC fusion
http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/f ... latos.html
Welcome to big company stupidity. It's stupidity by committee. One committee, business investment, doesn't want to invest in something they don't see as generating revenue, ie in this case, the Farnsworth fusor. Another committee, intellectual property, doesn't want to give up anything that might be valuable to the company. Net result, company doesn't want to develop something it holds IP on, but doesn't want to let anybody else have it either. After all the company might get around to doing something with it, someday. Happens all the time.hanelyp wrote:If the technology holds promise, why not develop it?
If the technology is worthless, why bother to suppress it?
Yes, this is the typical idiocy of bureaucracy.Jccarlton wrote:Welcome to big company stupidity. It's stupidity by committee. One committee, business investment, doesn't want to invest in something they don't see as generating revenue, ie in this case, the Farnsworth fusor. Another committee, intellectual property, doesn't want to give up anything that might be valuable to the company. Net result, company doesn't want to develop something it holds IP on, but doesn't want to let anybody else have it either. After all the company might get around to doing something with it, someday. Happens all the time.hanelyp wrote:If the technology holds promise, why not develop it?
If the technology is worthless, why bother to suppress it?
What has always amazed me is how so many people have personal experiences with the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, yet continue to believe in political ideologies that are based on the efficacy of bureaucracy (i.e. liberal-left, social conservative, etc.). I think this cognitive disconnect is one symptom of the brain damage that is caused by the public schools.