If you are correct - and i don't doubt that you are - then this frustrates me even more around why corporations push to extend the life of their copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc. Patents and such were supposed to be an aid to kick things off (for a nascent economy), not survive for the long-ass life of some large conglomerate corporation to squeeze every little last drop of juice from all the existing citrus fruit! (Sorry, i guess lately i've been feeling very anti-corporation...and i haven't had my coffee yet today.)
Which is an acceptable risk (and could happen regardless of policies challenging pollution prevention), as long as the temporary executive order (or agency policy) forces industry changes in the interim that can’t or won’t be reversed post SCOTUS decision.
Observe how legacy automakers have dropped their support for EPA efforts to remove California CARB authority, and have gotten onboard with tighter emission standards now that the new administration is onboarding [1] [2]. This is not altruism, but “reading the room.”
Regulation need not stick long term to be effective. Are automakers going to retool back to combustion vehicle production from EV production as we approach deadlines for combustion vehicle bans if those bans evaporate? Coal plants rebuilt? Electric busses scrapped for diesel buses? Unlikely. The capital will have already been committed, and domain expertise retired. The ruling then rings hollow.
This is not to discount the challenges we face with the current SCOTUS composition, but to triage and prioritize climate change efforts until the composition can be improved. “Technical debt”, if you will.
Its constituent companies were older, though. Hollerith's original Tabulating Machine patent was filed in 1884, and his machines and punch cards were used for the 1890 census.
