Reply to Danijel Gorupec: I also took a look at the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetically_modified_cement
I did not find it to be an advertisement in a "commercial sense" at all. It seems to me it was a very informative article about the science behind it etc., that has 20 years development in the academic community. The only reference to commercialization was a single reference to the technology being patented - and I do not see who that debases the article. It is about 5 words out of what must be several thousand.
I have found a load of other academic articles about the subject too, so do not understand the comment from Danijel "Anyway I have a hard time finding anything non-advertising about this". Number one, this is not true from even my brief research and if so, so what? Does that make the technology any less "worthy"? I do not think so. Why should it?
Regarding patenting, then it is very often required to ensure quality in the process: loads of Universities and colleges own substantial portfolios of patents. The point being that if something is patented, then unless you have a license you can use the method that's been patented. I would have thought that is prudent. It allows those who understand the technology to control its usage - and at the end of the day we do not want to build bridges and wotnot that collapse because the material was dodgy because someone had ripped-off technology they had not fully understood. I suspect that the patent protection is there to ensure quality.
If I were Chinese, I would want the license. Because I would also want the know how that comes with it and that's always going to be more valuable than not having that for the reasons covered.
