Hi Surges,
While not agreeing with your analogy, your point concerning change by a large end user of batteries is very true. One factor is risk, another is whether there is any pressing reason to change from the current technology and its planned future, and a third is simple inertia. Large and well established companies can suffer from fiefdoms as well as complacency, and sometimes straight forward resistance from the "not invented here" syndrome.
I'm encouraged that at this point the confidentiality agreement is with an end user, which may be in a dynamic stage of development, and be more open to a fresh approach than might be the case with a large battery manufacturer. I am more optimistic if the other party is smaller, more dynamic, or even a bit desperate.
Some of the comments above in this thread have been dismissive of this announcement - "we've heard it all before". True. As we know, Anteo's battery work has suffered a Rip van Winkle sleep over the last two years, and that attendance at this recent conference was as much as anything to let the industry know that Rip was awake and well, and was working on refining some further investigations. So to come away with a confidentiality agreement is certainly more than I had anticipated. I'm not sure what some posters might have expected: a signed contract for a major deal, perhaps? To me, a confidentiality agreement would be the first step along that path.
Expand