T.F. and the N.Y.T. have become a joke. Their attitude is sort of like: "yeah, we've lost a few readers, but the ones that stayed are really smart, the ones who left don't understand what's going on, and they're too stupid to understand how complex it all is".

He's not naive. He's an idiot.

"And that means working to end our addiction to oil."

Anyone who complains about "ending our addiction to oil" (i.e., stop using a relatively cheap, effective, easily stored and transported energy source) but doesn't start the next sentence with "Therefore, we must start building lots and lots of nuclear power plants right now..." is unserious and should be mocked.

I note Friedman starts his next sentence making political points against Republicans.

Unserious.

Yeah, I sort of have to agree. Taking basic economic models that would imply that raising the gas tax will make it more expensive to drive and therefore will encourage more people to use bikes, take public transportation, make fewer trips - it's simply not realistic in America, a country that is so spread out that it relies heavily on cars and trucks. I'm certainly for the encouragement of building fuel efficient vehicles - it can be a win/win situation for everyone (less pollution, cheaper trips). Occasionally, I'll read little stories about a business trying to reduce its shipping costs by buying more fuel efficient trucks - such as this one: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/04/22/supermarkets-roll-fuel-efficient-truck-fleets/. But I have to say, strangely, the last time I heard individual car owners, on the whole, try to make a change to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles is when the price of gas exceeded $3.00+ during the whole "pain at the pumps" episode a couple of years ago - so maybe Friedman does have a point there.

I consider myself a capitalist, but sometimes I think the free market can't solve everything. For example, based on my personal experiences in a prior job, I'm aware of oil companies buying patents on alternative sources of fuel and then just sitting on them. The free market encouraged them just to buy out/get rid of the competition (at least in the short run). Alas.

What Spartee said about nuclear.

Since Friedman calls out the Republicans, I'll call out the Democrats, too. If the Democrats hadn't been so beholden to every extremist environmental interest group the last 35 years, and to their anti-nuclear rhetoric, we could, like France, have 80% of our electricity powered by nuclear by now. And could have, long ago, turned our full attention to developing viable alternatives in powering our vehicles (as opposed to such boondoggles as ethanol).

And nuclear waste storage is a strawman. Go see what France is doing. We already have waste sites in Nevada that this administration is trying to close down. Why?

Here's a quicker fix, can be done this afternoon if we wanted- have Congress and the CIA stop pouring billions od dollars to the warlords of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.

Sitting on a patent only works for 18 years and if the cost of the new patented technology is not cost effective compared to the current cost of extracting oil, it is not a good market bet. We had an alternative fuels (coal liquefaction)plant being built here in Wyoming that was going great guns when gas was four bucks a gallon but right now the cost of producing the product would not be competitive with what a barrel of oil is selling for. The free market is not perfect but in both the long, and the short run it always works best. The perfect economic system only exists in Utopia, and we don't live there. Unfortunately, this is the real world, not a socialist fantasy.

factsarefacts: "...the free market can't solve everything. For example...I'm aware of oil companies buying patents on alternative sources of fuel and then just sitting on them...

Allowing companies to buy patents for new technologies in order to suppress them is not free-market capitalism, it's crony capitalism. Don't blame free-market capitalism for the many failures and injustices of crony capitalism, at least until free market capitalism -- which would afford open access to research opportunities in alternative energy technologies -- is given a chance.

And taxing the hell out of gas will only change behaviors up to a point. People still have to drive where they're going. No amount of tax is going to change that, but rather will make people even madder about high taxes than they are now.

Factsarefacts: "For example, based on my personal experiences in a prior job, I'm aware of oil companies buying patents on alternative sources of fuel and then just sitting on them. The free market encouraged them just to buy out/get rid of the competition (at least in the short run). Alas."

CPAbroker: "Allowing companies to buy patents for new technologies in order to suppress them is not free-market capitalism, it's crony capitalism."

I disagree with your respective sense of patent holdings and how they should be judged on a normative basis.

I often see businesses develop industry-related technology or even buy it from competitors, but then not take the project further after development or purchase. The reason? Not because they want to kill an innovation or protect a ricebowl they now have. (Businesses are not *that* static-minded.) Rather typically there is a key component or input still to be developed that will make the new technology commercially viable (i.e., make the project actually profitable).

In such cases, the patented technology is often shelved, as a strategic patent, thus permitting the patent-holder to collect from anyone else who develops the next key component(s) or inputs, even if the patent holder does not happen to develop the key components.

People who complain that firms should not be able to do this don't understand patent rights, because that is what *every* patent holder does: prevents others from exploiting the technology so the patent holder can profit from the prior investment in development.

Look at your cell phone. The reason it exists is because literally hundreds of firms made investments in R&D, filed patents, sold patents, licensed patents, etc. None of the individual patents were sufficient to build that phone, nearly all of them are necessary to go in to the phone. Old phone companies likely held some of that R&D patent portfolio. Other patents came from disparate industries outside the communications technology realm--software, computer hardware, etc. But the active R&D programs come from the firms' sense that their investment will result in a right to exploit the technology they create. That includes selling the rights to that patent to competitors, who may use it as a "blocking" patent, to protect their place in the industry while development continues.

Sorry, I should have added further data to support my viewpoint. You are very right Spartee. I have certainly seen, in my work life, purchases of intellectual property that were meant to be an long-term investment in the future (and, for multiple reasons, ranging from technological constraints to the budget cuts in R&D, whose development stalled).

However, in my prior job, I was informed by the higher level managers who decided to make the purchases that they were buying the patents solely for the purpose of sitting on them. The intellectual property purchase agreements would contain, among other things, (i) a confidentiality clause that would prevent the inventor from EVER speaking about the invention and (ii) a clause granting ownership to the purchaser of any other intellectual property that emanated from any of the research that resulted in the original patent. So, even when the patent expires, the inventor can't even tell other potential manufacturers about it; if the inventor wants to do additional research to try and improve on the original patent, why bother? - it'll belong to the purchaser anyway. In addition, as I've seen with pharma patents, you can effectively extend the life of your patent, if necessary, by pursuing litigation of some sort and obtaining stays.

Sometimes, I think, government involvement may be necessary. Hypothetically, for example, let's say that there is a demand for plug-in electric or hybrid cars - the consumer wants it and the manufacturers are willing to make them. It won't fly, however, unless there's an improvement in the nation's electrical grids and an increase in the number of power plants to handle the increased demand for electricity.

"However, in my prior job, I was informed by the higher level managers who decided to make the purchases that they were buying the patents solely for the purpose of sitting on them. The intellectual property purchase agreements would contain, among other things, (i) a confidentiality clause that would prevent the inventor from EVER speaking about the invention and (ii) a clause granting ownership to the purchaser of any other intellectual property that emanated from any of the research that resulted in the original patent. So, even when the patent expires, the inventor can't even tell other potential manufacturers about it;"

Would someone who is a patent expert tell me if this is even possible? I thought patents were for the most part public documents,which would describe the invention, or new process well enough so that another inventor could distinguish whether his invention was essentially the same or new enough to qualify for a patent on its own. Except for top secret government stuff which is classified, how do you go about sitting on a process that becomes a public record when that patent in granted? Just curious as my legal specialty is contracts and taxes.

"The intellectual property purchase agreements would contain, among other things, (i) a confidentiality clause that would prevent the inventor from EVER speaking about the invention and (ii) a clause granting ownership to the purchaser of any other intellectual property that emanated from any of the research that resulted in the original patent."

Absolutely unremarkable.

Trade secrets are (often valuable) intellectual property, the owner's interest in which continues even after any patent term expiration. Trade secrets can even be more valuable than the patent in some cases.

But trade secrets are only valuable while they are *secret*. Hence, no talking.

"If the inventor wants to do additional research to try and improve on the original patent, why bother? - it'll belong to the purchaser anyway."

This is done to protect the purchaser from an inventor who actually has developed more, but wants to salami-slice the sale of each iterative development. It also protects against the inventor quickly refining the original invention into an additional "blocking" patent that the purchaser otherwise would file for in due time.

Freidman's premise, that Islamic terrorism is caused by western exploitation of Middle East oil, is flawed. Islamic terrorism exists because it is their charter to convert the entire world to Sharia law by any means. Islam conquered most of Asia, and parts of Africa and Europe by the 10th century for this very reason ... before fossil fuels were in any kind of meaningful use. Islamic terrorism will continue until their goal is achieved whether we use oil, plutonium, wind, sun or gopher farts for fuel.

Hi Isabel, yes, patents are, for the most part, public documents. But patent protection offered under the law is just one of many methods that can be employed to stymie competition.

You can read the following article about the patent encumbrance of the NiMH batteries as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

Note the lack of solar panels on the roof of Thomas Friedman's mansion:

http://climategate.tv/2010/08/23/thomas-friedman-cries-unsustainability-from-his-glorious-mansion/

Da sent me this:

Here's an interesting read, important and verifiable information:

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a
revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion
barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a
formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one
should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION
barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States.

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America
become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East-more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in
the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again!
It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

GOOGLE it, or follow this link.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Hi Isabel, I noticed that you stated that you had a background in contracts. I also wanted to point out that in the confidentiality clauses that I read, there were none of the standard carve-outs (or exceptions) that you usually get (like, disclosing information that is already public or disclosing pursuant to an order of a government body, like Congress or pursuant to a court order). There just weren't any. That struck me as a bit unusual.

Confidentiality agreements, are a subset of contract law, and have become much like the proverbial poison pill is business. The actual contract (confidentiality agreement) may not stand up to legal scrutiny but most people who sign them are not in a position to pay the legal expenses, if it ever becomes necessary to challenge them in court, to find out what parts are legally enforceable and what parts are not. Ergo, the real threat that you will be sued is enough to keep most people from yacking about anything in them, regardless of how public some of the information already is. I had a relative who worked biotech as an organic chemist who found himself in this position, when he tried to change jobs.

I've long said we need to work on an engine that runs on offense, a resource we have a surfeit of. We could power a small city just by attaching wires to Al Sharpton and showing him episodes of Amos and Andy.

FAF maybe you can provide us w/ an example of the super secret energy technologies you're referring to. Because as someone w/ a background in engineering, who's followed this area for some time, I have to tell you that I'm very skeptical of your claims. These sorts of conspiracy theories are very common, but never hold up under examination.

"But I have to say, strangely, the last time I heard individual car owners, on the whole, try to make a change to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles is when the price of gas exceeded $3.00+ during the whole "pain at the pumps" episode a couple of years ago - so maybe Friedman does have a point there. "

You must not live in CA, or at least not in a major city here. Down in San Diego, gas has been back above $3 again for a few weeks and really didn't get below $2.80 for much time if at all there.

I laughed when I went back to NH this summer and rented a car. They had a deal where you could buy a full tank of gas at rental time and return it without filling up. Their "higher" price for this was $2.68, when gas was a good $.20 higher at home. Local prices at the pump were $2.63 or so. Granted if you didn't take that deal (I didn't) and then not return it full (I always fill up a rental on the way back) it was then an astronomical $8.80/gal.. but that's how they get you.

You might need to learn something about motor vehicles to talk about energy use therein.

Take a look here.

"HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this?"

But Flynne, that would mean touching our own precious habitat! Somebody might dig a hole and disturb a bug or something.

I live in Montana. People complain about having religion shoved down their throats, but I've come to feel the same way about environmentalism. I'm gagging on it.

Isn't oil subsidized here?
Personally, even if they raise gas taxes, I'd still do quite a bit of driving. I live in Texas; here, public transportation is for students, crackheads, poor people, and California transplants. I've taken the bus in other states, and ridden subways in other countries, but would never hop on Austin's Cap Metro. Ew.
Furthermore, I'm thinking about moving from my small German SUV/crossover to something full-sized, like a Yukon or Suburban or Expedition. For me, it's a safety issue. I've almost been hit twice this week by self-important West Austin bitches on their cell phones: once by a Land Rover, then later a Suburban. You couldn't pay me to put my kid in a Leaf or a Yaris or Smart Car. I know that some of the larger SUVs come in a hybrid now, but you generally can't find them used, and the fuel savings don't really make up for the difference in purchase price at this point. Plus, I live central anyway, so I don't have to drive all over the city to do whatever I need to.
Gas would have to be over 5 or 6 bucks a gallon, and/or I'd have to move out to BFE, before fuel efficiency would factor into my car purchase decisions.
I also have a (probably unfounded) personal theory that the majority of people who end up as Islamic extremists are the miserable poor people who don't profit off of oil, anyway. I don't mean Osama Bin Laden, I'm referring to the people he and his organization recruit to do the dirty work.

I guess I don't share your optimistic outlook that the oil monopoly is purely the result of market-driven forces.

Flynne, I was told when mentioning the same information, that the oil discovery is actually in oil shale, not just pockets of oil so it would have to be extracted out of rock which is very costly with the current technologies. It's not as simple as just sucking it out of the ground. I don't know if it's true it's oil shale, just what I had been told.

There's a gaping hole in Friedman's plan that nobody's mentioned- the US gets the lion's share of its oil imports from Canada and Mexico.

To de-fund Saudi Arabia and Iran the entire world has to stop using oil. And it's not going to, is it?

Less than 10% of US oil imports in 2009 were from Saudi Arabia. Twice as much came in from Canada, and the same amount from Mexico as from Saudi.

(And on the stupid "electric car" thing, that Wikipedia article is a joke even by Wikipedia standards.

Insipid, and the sources there don't even all agree with the thesis of Chevron "trying to stop" EVs [not that Chevron would be able to in any case, no matter what, given that even if it could buy the LiIon patents as well, they all expire eventually - NiMH is a moribund technology anyway].

The sooner I never have to hear about "Who Killed The Electric Car" and people who believe it's gospel ever again, the better.

It's stupidity along the lines of "THEY own a 100mpg carburetor design but THEY won't sell it so THEY can make more money!" - it makes negative sense, as such a thing is far more valuable being sold than being held as a wasting asset, which is all a patent is.

You know what killed the god damn electric car? Electric cars. Even now, with modern technology of 2010, they're just barely sort-of useful for people who don't drive a lot.

The big scary oil companies aren't quaking in fear of them... especially since in today's energy climate in the US the most likely fuel of for power plants to feed a giant fleet of EVs is oil or natural gas.

Guess who sells those? Why, giant oil companies!)

And that means working to end our addiction to oil.

We're not "addicted" to oil. It's a tool we use. We use vehicles and power plants to power our economy. Vehicles, at least for now, need oil to run. And the enviromentalists have effectively cut us off from non-oil power plants that actually generate enough electricity to power something other than a single hot water heater.

We're no more "addicted" to oil than we were "addicted" to hay when we used horses and oxen to power our economy.

I can't stop laughing as I read through most of these comments. This is clearly a capitalist "hang-out."

As an American Socialist let me just say this:

Every regime in history ridiculed the possibility that the people would rise against it ... right up to the moment that the people broke down the gates.

If you capitalists are serious about maintaining your system long-term, then you'd better start realizing that working-class Americans are fed up. Like it or not, they're angry and burned out. Bootstrap fables and myths about working harder won't work this time. Working class Americans no longer believe that they might one day be Donald Trump. So, try a new approach.

Or, don't. Continue preaching to each other about the success of your system while more and more people in the 3rd world starve, more and more working Americans lose their homes, fewer and fewer Americans attend college, etc. Continue preaching about the dangers of Stalin and Mao when Americans are actually looking at Sweden, Canada, and Finland. Please. Continue. I'll be out on the street talking to Americans about possibilities.

I can't stop laughing as I read through most of these comments. This is clearly a capitalist "hang-out."

As an American Socialist let me just say this:

Every regime in history ridiculed the possibility that the people would rise against it ... right up to the moment that the people broke down the gates.

If you capitalists are serious about maintaining your system long-term, then you'd better start realizing that working-class Americans are fed up. Like it or not, they're angry and burned out. Bootstrap fables and myths about working harder won't work this time. Working class Americans no longer believe that they might one day be Donald Trump. So, try a new approach.

Or, don't. Continue preaching to each other about the success of your system while more and more people in the 3rd world starve, more and more working Americans lose their homes, fewer and fewer Americans attend college, etc. Continue preaching about the dangers of Stalin and Mao when Americans are actually looking at Sweden, Canada, and Finland. Please. Continue. I'll be out on the street talking to Americans about possibilities.