BT Patents for E cigarettes 1991

Status
Not open for further replies.

sherid

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 25, 2008
2,266
493
USA
Interesting story from 1991
Patents; Developing 'Smoke-Free' Cigarettes
By Edmund L. Andrews
Published: November 2, 1991
WASHINGTON— In what may portend a new attempt to sell "smoke free" cigarettes, three leading tobacco companies obtained patents this week for different approaches to products that mimic the sensation of smoking without actually burning tobacco.

Cigarette makers have been trying to develop a less-objectionable product to contend with declining sales and the rapid spread of smoking bans. In general, smoke-free cigarettes heat tobacco rather than burn it and produce a vapor that resembles smoke but does not contain the thick tar that coats a smoker's lungs. The first attempt to market a smoke-free cigarette, by R. J. Reynolds, flopped two years ago.

Of the three approaches, the Philip Morris Companies has the most radical: an electric cigarette that comes with a replaceable tobacco cartridge and would be controlled by a push-button. According to the patent, the barrel of the cigarette would contain a small battery power source that would be connected by separate electrical leads to 10 tiny heating elements. These elements would either be coated with tobacco extracts and vapor-forming ingredients, or they would be surrounded by tiny pellets of tobacco and other components. Push-Button Smoke

When a person decided to light up, he or she would press a button on the cigarette, activating one of the heaters with a brief electrical charge that creates a puff of hot tobacco flavor. To get a second puff, the smoker would turn a knob at the base of the cigarette that would activate a second heating element.

Would the Marlboro Man smoke a cigarette like this? Philip Morris, based in New York City, refused to comment on its plans, but the new cigarette would clearly offer a very different experience. In the patent, the company said the product would "produce a consistent release of flavor with each puff" without overheating.

Philip Morris received patent 5,060,671.

R. J. Reynolds shelved plans to introduce a smoke-free product called Premier in 1989, after consumers complained in market tests about both its taste and odor. But the company, which returned to the laboratory for more research on the product, obtained another in a series of patents covering its basic approach.

The Reynolds cigarette features a highly refined charcoal tip, which can be lit with a match and is surrounded by an insulating jacket. The "barrel" behind the tip contains tobacco as well as an inner core filled with tiny capsules that emit a tobacco-flavored vapor when exposed to a stream of hot air from the charcoal tip. In Premier, these capsules were tiny beads of alumina coated with tobacco and a mixture of water and glycerine that create a vapor when heated.

R. J. Reynolds received patent 5,060,666.

Patents - Developing 'Smoke-Free' Cigarettes - NYTimes.com
 

sherid

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 25, 2008
2,266
493
USA
The one thing that stands out for me about this post is that if any of them were marketed (and at least some were)then they beat the deadline of 2/07 in the new FDA rules. The next thing that jumps out is that BT has been in this all the time, probably waiting for the right moment to announce their version of the e cig.
 
The one thing that stands out for me about this post is that if any of them were marketed (and at least some were)then they beat the deadline of 2/07 in the new FDA rules. The next thing that jumps out is that BT has been in this all the time, probably waiting for the right moment to announce their version of the e cig.

If you're looking for the nefarious "smoking gun" (so to speak) at Big Tobacco, I think you have it right here. IMO, BT is not trying to get e-cigs banned but rather is letting the would-be competition (e-cig suppliers) run themselves into the ground trying to fight the FDA without the financial backing of a tobacco giant. When all is said and done, I expect BT to gleefully latch on to whatever positive outcome our grassroots efforts to keep e-cigs available accomplish and once it is clear how to make e-cigs legal, that is when BT will arrive with the $$ to make their version work.

In other words, although we certainly can't trust tobacco companies to have our backs (because they WILL stab us if given the opportunity), I suspect that they are currently on our side of the fence.
 

Poeia

Bird Brain
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 6, 2009
9,789
14,368
NYC
Add to that that the nicotine which is added to the liquid we vape comes from tobacco (as does the nicotine in NRTs.) Big Tobacco controls the delivery chain for tobacco.

Big Pharma, makers of Wellbutrin, Chantrix, nicotine gum and the patch, are the ones with the most to lose if e-cigs become more readily available.
 

ChipCurtis

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 4, 2009
293
8
Add to that that the nicotine which is added to the liquid we vape comes from tobacco (as does the nicotine in NRTs).

I am pretty sure most if not all FDA-approved NRTs contain synthetic "pharmaceutical grade" nicotine. It is also my understanding that MOST e-liquid is made from natural nicotine extracted from tobacco plants, although a few selelct e-liquid companies "brag" about having pharma grade nicotine in them.

It would seem to me that Big Pharma has no particular agenda to want to keep Big Tobacco afloat. I think both BP and BT are competing against each other to have at this new e-cig technology, but want to frame the whole e-cig paradigm to fit it into their way of "seeing" things: i.e., defining it as tobacco product or drug delivery device by way of which type of nicotine (synthetic or natural) that it contains.
 

D103

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 18, 2010
660
105
cedar rapids, iowa
I agree with many in this thread and my concern is that Tobacco companies will "arrive" once all the "hard work is done" (in the event we prevail) and will postion themselves much more able to meet whatever regulations the FDA decides upon thus, once again monopolizing the market and driving the current, smaller e-cig vendors out of business. Our idea of "choice" and 'their' idea of choice are two entirely different things. While I agree the first and most important battle is to gain the legal right for e-cigs to remain in the marketplace and available to adults, I feel we need to also consider the secondary round of the battle i.e.- "regulations" and just how restrictive and exclusionary they will be. Lest in our zeal to win the battle we end up losing the war!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread