The modern mythos of 20th century American industry includes many stories of businesses being founded in a garage. As the stories go, a few plucky founders will construct a widget in their garage and, with prototype in hand, look for a way to get the product to customers. Famously, Apple computer and Hewlett Packard were founded in this manner.

What you don’t often hear about is the extent to which the founders might have performed a market study to ascertain the potential demand in the market. Possibly because the frequency of this ground work is near zero. Certainly the founders had some sense that like-minded folk would want copies of their products. In other words, if you build it, at least a few will come.

Similarly, one doesn’t hear so much about the rate of failure either. How many storage lockers are crammed with the remains of a failed business plan?  Probably more than a few.

What every technological entrepreneur eventually has to come to grips with is this- who are the customers and how can you get the message of new capability to them? Seth Godin has some interesting ideas about this. Godin suggests that in todays information saturated market place, the critical customers are the innovators and the early adopters.

So here is the big question- Why don’t we hear more about chemists launching businesses out of a garage?  Better yet, how might the chemical industry be different if more chemists did start a chemical business in this celebrated manner?  Most might agree that the culture of entrepreurialism that Wozniak, Jobs, Packard, Hewlett, and Gates picked up and ran with dramatically accelerated the growth of the electronics industry. But fewer might agree on what clues these founders took as their cue to risk everything. How does a fledgeling chemical entrepreneur know if the idea, process, or material of interest is worthy of risking the family nest egg?

On the next posting, we’ll talk about some of the factors that a chemical entrepreneur might face in getting started.

Eurogiant BASF recently announced the launch of their new organozinc halide capability. BASF is offering a portfolio of organozinc halide reagents on the strength of a licensing agreement with Rieke Metals of Lincoln, Nebraska. The value proposition that BASF is pushing is the compatibility of organozinc species with functional groups that are normally incompatible with organolithium or organomagnesium reagents. Likewise, the zinc reagents will undergo a variety of coupling and Michael-type reactions, though apparently with additives.

It is interesting to speculate as to the basis of the license. Does Rieke have a proprietary process to license? Is it based upon trade secrecy or a patent? Certainly Rieke Metals has considerable expertise with organozinc chemistry plus a grip on its trademarked Rieke ®Zinc. 

A perusal of the patent literature comes up with only one patent application by Rieke Metals as the assignee. However, Prof Rieke has been patenting for the University of Nebraska and obtained fifteen patents as of this date. The most recent patent is US 5,964,919 issued Oct. 12, 1999.  A number of them could contain the value that BASF would require to step into this venture.

Of interest is US patent 6,603,034 issued to “Consortium fr Elektrochemische Industrie GmbH” for “A process for preparing organozinc halides in a solvent, comprising reacting a reactive halogen compound with zinc in at least one carboxylic ester, to produce a solution.”  Hmmm.

I’m a distant admirer of Rieke Metals. I respect how they have grown into their niche and have remained focused on the prize. I hope the venture goes well for all concerned.