53 posts • joined Wednesday 9th May 2007 11:02 GMT
Was Shoreline Erosion Taken Into Account?
Rather than argue for or against, why not add some new thinking? If this paper is correct, then we also have to take into account the action of the sea at sea level. If, say, sea level had been stable for the last 3 million years; while the Eastern Seaboard had risen 35 metres; then every tidal estuary would be situated within a 35 metre escarpment on each side of the bay. However, anyone that has, for example, spent some time in Washington DC will be able to tell you that the land surrounding the tidal levels of the sea does not have 35 metre escarpments on each side.
Yes, sea levels have both risen and fallen during the last 3 million years. What AGW proponents argue is that sea levels have never been higher, (during the period CO2 was between 180 and 300 ppm), than today; and as such, with a steady rise in the surface levels of the ES, we ought to be able to observe the interaction between the rising land and the action of the sea; at sea level; constantly eroding the rising land.
A shoreline, 35 metres above present sea level, but with no erosion caused by the sea between the present sea level and the old shoreline, to my mind, seems to point to either a sudden rise in land levels or a sudden drop in sea levels; where erosion cannot become a factor.
Was that scenario taken into account in the research?
Re: All of this is just pure fantasy. It's not science!
Joerg is correct to point out that "creating a simulation based upon assumptions" is a childish fantasy.
The underlying problem is the assumption that the laws of physics are immutable; laid down on stone tablets.
There is at least one much better explanation of the forces involved with the formation of the arms of a galaxy that has been out there for more than a decade; but it has not been reviewed because the new thinking challenges the assumptions laid down on those stone tablets.
As a British inventor that has just had a new patent granted, GB2447526, I can say a few things here that should be seen as relevant to the discussion. In the first place, it took the UK IPO very nearly 5 years to deliver the patent, while, at the same time, the Japan Patent Office makes a big thing that they do their best to deliver a patent within days. Their reasoning being that speed delivers a real, definable, competitive advantage to their nation. Here, my own experience shows us that the UK IPO seems to want to see something that they know and can immediately understand. So anything bringing forward new knowledge is suppressed rather than appreciated and they sit on it because they cannot understand new thinking; where in point of fact, true invention delivers something that NO ONE has ever before created.
The other side of the coin is well represented here. Many within modern society seem to believe that all IP is born from giant corporations that must be fought against; rather than recognising that all new IP is the birth child of a single individual who must have some mechanism to earn a living.
Another crucial aspect is there is no mechanism to deliver the equity capital investment that is essential if the originator is to be able to develop their original thinking. The only source being, yes you have guessed it; the giant corporation.....
The total failure of the UK executive government, the Civil Service, to stand up and protect the individual rights holder, is well represented in the ongoing indifference of the UK IPO. One only needs to remember Tony Blair telling everyone that his government was absolutely against "Individualism" to get an idea of the negative mindset inside Whitehall. Then add how the MOD nowadays will only deal with one supplier and we can see that a Parliamentary committee is very unlikely to be able to deliver any real change.
Until the UK economy completely collapses, (not that I wish such), I suspect no one will listen to anything a single inventor has to say; but for the record, the very first thing to do is close down several departments and retire the top 10 levels of the Civil Service. THEN we just might have a half chance of renewing past success as a manufacturing nation based upon Intellectual Property.
"In fact, GM has already saves millions of lives in poor countries due to increased yields."
Tell that to the millions of Indian farmers that are now desitute with a substantial number committing suicide..... why..... because the claims are pure unadulterated Bull sh one T
My problem is the funding for this 100 year space ship is provided by the utter idiots that are also developing a device to deliver a bomb to any point on the surface of this planet within an hour. People with that mindset should not be anywhere near ANY form of long term peaceful development of space technology.
And I do indeed mean it when I say; Utter Idiots.
For that reason, I will not associate myself in any way with the 100 year space ship program.
We need to find a way forward with long term space ship development that has, right at the heart of the operation; the peaceful development of space travel.
Re: Careful with your evolution mumbo jumbo.
There are two separate "lines of evolution" of the genus Homo Sapiens, not one. Why do I say that? Because I, (and many around me here in the South of England), have a VERY distinct ridge of bone running from front to back down the centre of my skull; whereas others have a totally rounded, like an eggshell, skull form.
In the past, I was told my skull shape was caused by the manner of my birth and that it was due to the way the plates of my skull fused after birth. Now I have come to the conclusion that the whole idea of defining a different skull shape as a different genus became impossible due to the stupidities from WW2 NAZI experiments. Another reason being, (and you can easily try this for yourselves), that people seem to find it VERY difficult to feel the top of another individuals skull.
Be that as it may, considering the strength of the real difference between my skull shape and structure, to that of others with a totally smooth, rounded skull; I am convinced that I must be from a different line of evolution to the other skull form.
Again, my father is listed in Salt Lake City as a member of a family that "Lives to a great age", so, while I am 68 years old, I am also very fit and agile and thus expect to live to that great age. Oh! and he is also listed as a direct descendant of Princess Pocahontas; which makes me a Pow tan Red Indian Prince many times removed. :)
In which case, there is much more to learn that that presently posited.
WHY NOT THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION? TEMPERATURE CONTROLS RADIATION.
Simply, why not also reach the conclusion that it is the temperature of the atmosphere that controls the quantity of cosmic radiation detected?
Without any corroborating evidence; it is entirely possible that we might conclude that the temperature controls the data, rather than radiation controls.
The overall problem with security of the traffic on the internet
The overall problem with security starts and stops with the quality of the UK Hosting services. My recent experience tells me we have a very long way to go before anything can be achieved.
Strategy will be everything.
Ice is the unseen problem that will bring the whole idea to a full stop
Having designed a Freeze Drying Microscope taking samples down to -100C I can tell you from direct experience, the problem they face is ice. It is quite amazing just how much moisture there is in air. Moisture that will, instantly, turn into ice. Remember, when aircraft engines were first created, they had to fit heaters to their engine intakes to melt the ice as it formed..... or the engine would promptly fail.
They make no mention of what they are going to do about the ice that will, inevitably, coat the entire cooler system. Ice is their Achilles heel.
Lack of available competitive investment is the underlying cause
"Europe lost its last global technology platform. "
Perhaps it will take the endgame of the long term demise of NOKIA to bring everyone to recognise; that the real failure in Europe, is the idea that all long term development, (and by association, government grant support), for new technology; must always be into existing large companies.
This saga is a classic demonstration of what you get, in the end, from a lack of competition. Instead of many new, small businesses, snapping at the heels of the likes of NOKIA, (and, moreover, in the right place to immediately take up the running as a market leader), you get stagnated management, unable to see the potential from their magnificent gold plated "offices".
Europe desperately needs a functioning system to feed new, free enterprise based, equity capital; into new small businesses, right at the grass roots of every nation. Until the EU recognises that need, all we are going to see is the same story, again and again.........
The Space Chronometer was a much better idea
Considering that, with the help of Dr. Alan Jefferson, I became one of the "Honourable Mentions" for the Tour Eiffel de la Space Competition, in 1986, celebrating the Centenary of the design and construction of the Eiffel Tower, with our entry for The Space Chronometer; an hour minute and second hand in space to give Greenwich Mean Time to all humanity; one might be forgiven for asking why has it taken so long to try out such structures? And such a feeble one at that....
Our own was for three separate hands, hour, minute and second; 9Km, 6Km and 3Km in length, a control module at the centre of each hand and the same length cable, 9Km, 6Km, and 3Km to the other end to balance the rotation with each hand having a satellite at each end to drive their rotation. The rotation holding the hands out straight with the design being limited by the once every 60 seconds rotation of the 3Km long second hand on one side and the 3Km long cable balancing on the other, rotating around the central control module. Each hand a quite separate entity, each one behind the other to form a single clock face.
The whole providing an 18Km diameter "Clock in Space".
I stick to my previous statement
It is clear that those of you that slam the idea of keeping a steam catapult have no experience of sea water around anything electrical. Add to that the sea slamming into the electrical equipment in that slot in the flexing deck in a force ten storm and remember, it MUST work 24/7/365.
It is one thing to launch an aircraft from a dry desert airstrip and quite another at sea in a ship that flexes while being awash with zillions of gallons of violently agitated sea water. Another point to make is that, with anything new, you let someone else try it out first so that they can put up with all the unexpected problems, so we are going to be the fall guys.
Again, a decent sized warship has a complement of, say, a thousand, now compute their fresh water requirements.......... You need a fresh water system whether you like it or not.
To specify an aircraft carrier without an aircraft was bad enough, but without steam catapults is, IMHO utter stupidity. But then, I am a fool until the day there is a small flash and a puff of smoke and the lights all go out......... Steam has a very long history in ships for the very simple reason, it is very reliable. You aircraft carrier is a useless pile of scrap if you cannot launch the aircraft at the exact moment you need to. Add to that the requirements for the defence of the carrier fleet and you end up with more than one type of aircraft to be launched.
To specify without any prior experience to back up the decision, on something of such primary importance as your flagship is, to the defence of the nation; is irresponsible to say the least.
I stick to my previous statement.and leave the matter to the history of the Royal Navy.
Live Steam is a fundamental aspect of all ships
All ships have what are known as Live Steam systems. heating, cooking, and with aircraft carriers, catapults. It is easily provisioned and is very reliable, having been in use since WW2. So now we know the reason why the ships were not provided with steam catapults, the contractors knew there was a new electromagnetic catapult in the pipeline.
This just another example of the poor quality of the MoD Civil Servants. They have been hoodwinked into a strategy that tries to force us to buy the new technology.
Just to remind everyone of the old technology, it is a simple tube with a split along its length with an internal flap, originally made of leather. Inside the tube is a piston with a flange on its side to fit within the slit in such a manner that, as the piston is forced by live steam down the tube, the flap slides around the flange and maintains a seal. So the old technology is THAT simple and works VERY reliably. VERY Cheap, reliable, simple, well understood.
There is not one single reason for abandoning the steam catapult.
This is outrageous.
The Mod should immediately institute a design change to the carrier specification to include steam catapults and fire the civil servants that were implicit in the failure to include them in the first place.
Motorola attorney in Chicago showed one of my patents as an example of a good patent
Some time ago, a US inventor, in dispute with Motorola over their assumed patent rights attended a meeting between his attorney and the Motorola legal team in Chicago. During that meeting, (I was told), one of the the Motorola attorneys said something to the effect: "Your patent is worthless; this is an example of a good patent" and promptly tossed one of my US patents onto the table. Which is how I heard about the incident as they then approached me.
My patents? 5,712,679; 6,181,373; 6,469,735
Perhaps they should worry about me instead?
Why not follow it down with the booster following behind to record the flight?
Perhaps they need an English inventor to suggest that they add a camera to the booster nose and then when they release the hypersonic glider, they then follow the glider down while visually recording the flight. In that way they would also have secondary confirmation of what they are recording from the glider's on-board systems. If they had done that, they would have seen what happened. There, job done by an Englishman.
Government only wants more income for itself
These proposals from government are not designed to improve the circumstances of research, but are instead designed to improve the income of the government. If the government could, it would not fund anything at all. Furthermore, the primary role of government is surely to create law. Parliament's function is as a law maker for the nation. What has happened is that, to create new employment within the Civil Service, the servants, sic!, saw the opportunity to increase both their power over the nation and create new employment for themselves by getting involved as the originators of research and development. History shows us again and again, that if we do come up with something new and useful, they are so concerned to create income for themselves, the last thing they are going to do is go on supporting the work already initiated. How many successes have been sold on? The recent TV series describing the development of our hydrogen bomb, related bomber aircraft and the early rockets are an excellent example. Again and again, they sell off rather than support. So to come out now and say they are looking for new research to become more economic minded is another way of saying that they are in desperate need for more income to pay for their wages and pensions..... and they do not care a single jot as to how they get their hands on it. The great mistake has been to allow government to become involved in the first place. Why is there no mention of our savings institutions funding such? What are the savings of the nation doing being swilled around markets with a single purpose of creating income for the financial institutions? Take another look, they create immense income for, yes, you have guessed it, government. I have recently set into motion a debate using a free PDF book; The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective. In it I suggest that the rules for a true free market economy should be:
To create a true free market, capital based, local economy, with as much competition between the many suppliers to the local economy as possible; only requires we accept four primary rules: 1. Only the job creator makes the decision to create a new job. 2. They receive adequate Equity Capital by abiding to strict, but open rules that leave them in complete control of their new business. 3. Local savings are invested, as equity capital, back into the local community to provide the required capital to create the new jobs. 4. All transactions are made to the rules of a free market. It really is as simple as that.
If you go read the book, you will see that you can have every form of research paid for by the investment of the savings of the nation and without a single penny of taxation being spent. Until we create an economy that is more financially successful OUTSIDE of government so that the government returns to its primary function of creating law, the civil servants will continue to try every possible means to increase their income at your expense.
The rights to many N85 functions may be auctioned in Hong Kong next June
As I see it, they can only sell that to which they own the rights. It is my understanding that certain patent rights, (which may, or of course, may not, impinge upon some of their geographic markets), are going to be auctioned in Hong Kong next June. If indeed that turns out to be correct, they should worry about that as surely they would not wish to become a hostage to the fortunes of, say, a new upstart Chinese or Indian wireless phone manufacturer; would they?
A Total waste of money and matches Buckminster Fullers statements
By pure chance I came across this web page about Buckminster Fuller with this statement.
"How can they justify large research and development budgets for next year if it were visible that the original technical gains were accruing exclusively to society from the individual preoccupations and initiatives existing entirely outside of massive government and massive corporate manufacture and distribution? The self-deceit of democracy at this moment in history by its professionally advertised aggrandisement of the "corporate image" with reputed impeccability of super-inventiveness may be the undoing of democracy's case until another century has washed away this miasmic fallacy. Not only have these professional word- and picture-factories manufactured the greatest and most persuasively erroneous myths, but they also have robbed our heritage of word- and picture-language of its incisively exquisite effectiveness."
In 2002 I got to speak to a European Commissioner who told me that it is nowadays impossible to gain funding as an individual. The end result is that we get these sort of totally ridiculous proposals and they get funded. Dreadful waste of money.
Apple should look at their front entrance video database
They would see a tall British inventor, me, some years ago now, walk through their front door in Cupertino and leave an envelope with details of three US patents and one Japanese patent describing a full system, not just the hand held. I am told that, as a public company, they have to place to one side sufficient funds to cover any possible claim on such potential infringement.
I look forward to hearing from them in due course.
Nokia were not the first to invent social mapping
The originating inventor of social mapping was myself with a UK patent application dated 16th January 1989 culminating in three US patents 5,712,679; 6,181,373; 6,469,735 and one Japanese patent; 2896930. But I could never find funding, (A VERY long story). The first corporate use of social mapping was by Epson, in the shape of the Seiko-Epson LOCATIO system that, I am told by my Japanese Patent Agent, they abandoned upon the grant of my Japanese patent. But by then they were about a decade behind me, but with massive investment. Something I could never receive being in the UK where the idea of someone, anyone, having a new idea worth long term investment was, as today, laughed at.......... I have taken this from the Epson web site.
"Remarkably, the GPS semiconductor technology used in all the handsets was supplied by one company: Epson. To date, Epson has shipped more than 10 million of the GPS devices to manufacturers of 3G handsets.
"We were thrilled with this major design-in win," says Yutaka Kitazawa, General Manager of Epson's GPS Business Development Department. "It was a reward for a decade of pioneering research and development."
After Epson established the GPS business unit in 1995, Kitazawa's group came up with idea of creating a multifunction handheld device comprising a personal digital assistant or PDA, digital camera, mobile phone, and GPS that would work on low power. Dubbed the Locatio, the device was launched in 1998 together with both an e-mail service and a mapping service aimed at making the GPS technology more useful. "It was a revolutionary device," says Kitazawa. "Unfortunately, it was ahead of its time for most consumers. Still, we learned a lot from the experience."
The reality is that NOKIA are about twenty years behind the curve and do not own all the rights to which they are now addressing their efforts.
Buy an old Austin 7 Ruby instead
My experience of a fast car was to briefly own an E-Type 4.2L Roadster. The problem is that any "nice" girl will take a look and naturally assume that you are "fast" and I have to report that my personal life was much better when I drove an Austin 7 Ruby. When the fast car goes, the fast woman goes as well. Stick to a small car with class and win the heart of a nice girl. better by far than an imaginary "win" of someone that moves on as the success declines.
More on why we walk away
Earlier this year my old PC was hacked into so strongly that it completely collapsed with an unrecoverable system. I bought a new hard disc and re-installed my legitimate copy of XP Pro with my legitimate copy of Office XP Pro only to find that the system has automatically upgraded me to SP3 which interestingly removes all access to the upgrade system and now my office documents, while they still look OK on screen, but when I print, or convert to PDF and print, they now have a weird variation in the text when printed, making them unusable.
I am sure that some smart arse has come up with this as a great idea to force us to upgrade to new software. (Or the system has assumed I am no longer legitimate).
But this is like taking your old car in for a service and someone in the garage has decided that you cannot have your old car back in working order, or, that when you get in to drive, it wanders all over the road and if you go back they just scrug and walk away.
Imagine having an old, vintage car; and the dealer has decided that you can never drive it again. This attitude is exactly the same.
Ultimate market power corrupts in the same way as any other monopoly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and this is an excellent example. But as I said in my earlier comment, we can and will walk away from such indifference. In my case, as soon as I can afford to. With regard to Apple the price is acceptable because the ongoing service from Apple has a clear track record of creating product that is a satisfying experience for the customer.
Competition, free markets; are all about choice. Treat otherwise loyal customers with indifference and sooner or later, all of them will simply walk away.
I most certainly will, I am sure many many others are about to follow.
In turn I expect Apple to treat me with respect when I am older and own older software, just like an old car owner who cannot afford to buy a new car, I expect them to continue to treat me with the respect I am due as a loyal customer to their product.
Without that respect, we will always walk away.
Lesson number one in business - In the end, the customer can walk away.
Microsoft created an operating system that was redesigned; I reckon around about the 1986/87 period to seek out information on behalf of a great many organisations, not all of them benign or commercial. I suspect that, at its height, it has been a great success for some of those "organisations" but which had the downside of making it wide open to hackers too. In trying to keep collecting information while trying to keep out hackers, they created the worst of all worlds, a system that they had to keep running while at the same time, were trying to fend off criticism by trying to show they were committed to making the system hacker proof.
Ergo, we became, as users, attached to an unending stream of updates... start up, update, turn off, start machine, update... while all the time the information gathering capabilities made our PC slower and slower. Add to that we cannot see any of what is being collected. Have no idea of who is reading what or where. That once the "cat" was out of the bag, and the hackers themselves were then employed by commercial organisations to allow the commercial world the same information gathering capabilities as the "organisations" and the whole thing has arrived at a point so far away from a normal commercial product sold for the advantage of the customer that the customer has at last realised the continuing stupidity of all of this.
I first got an understanding of the unseen capabilities when my desktop turned completely Japanese one day. And on another day, someone ran a sound WAV file that was someone walking with hard shoes on a wood floor walking across the room, opening the door and closing it behind them, clunk! Whoever it was, was a real show off, but left me absolutely certain that there is no way we can keep anyone out of our machines.
Microsoft has destroyed its market. Or, should I say instead, the "organisations" requests for information gathering capabilities were, inevitably, sooner or later, going to override any commercial sense of what a product should provide a customer. We in turn have come to realise we can all walk a way.
I do hope, for all our sakes that Apple has had the good sense not to follow the siren calls from those "organisations" but then again, we may never know the truth anyway. We have to rely on the commercial sense of Steve Jobs. So as a final point, may I hereby ask Steve Jobs to make a public statement that there are no similar "subsystems" in OSX designed to gather similar "information".
They never once thought they would get water at the surface
They have made a VERY big mistake. They never seemed to have thought they would sit on a thin surface of dust covering a frozen ocean. If you have ever had any experience of freeze drying, you would know that ice sublimates. It freely turns from a solid to a mixture of gas molecules and water vapour. So the surface they are standing on is a sort of mush ice mixed with dust. When they dig into it, it is thus not unlike mud, (as a previous post has also alluded).
Remember, they are not in a high vacuum as with a freeze dryer, they are in a low pressure atmosphere which is still sufficient to create dust devils.
They needed to be able to remove the screens, but I would guess, they cannot. Thus always, the mush ice will inevitably have to dry out before it arrives in the oven. So someone came up with the idea that all they would want to observe was tiny particles and all the others, sic! never once took their device into a chamber with a frozen tank of water covered with a thin layer of dust that had been standing for say, at least a year to gain the full effect and asked the simple question; what if?
Now we will have to wait for Pioneer 2, what, perhaps another 10 years, before we get true readings of the water content of the material BEFORE entry to the oven. If they had just one single artisan, rather than all academics on their team, they might have spotted their simple, but disastrous mistake.
So the FIRST thing that must be done is to simulate the REAL dust environment on the surface under the spacecraft. (Which is now NOT a space craft, but an Earth ship on a dust covered frozen Martian ocean. And, remember, now that the ship is on the surface, it will act as a sun trap and heat the surface under the ship. So any possible solution must come ASAP, before the depth of the dust level increases as the increased heat levels sublime more of the under surface ice. But is so sad they never thought about the implications of a frozen surface covered with a thin layer of dust. They must have assumed that the surface was all dust and they would only find a very slight indication of water. If only they had assumed all scenarios, they would have had at least one oven without a screen.
Take simple instruments and fly the aircraft
All the MOD needs to do, is fit standard aircraft instruments and fly the Chinooks. If all the problem was, was that they were not cleared to fly on instruments, then a standard set of artificial horizon and related instruments out of a civilian aircraft would have done the job for what? 10K per aircraft?
They are reacting to the danger of competition... too late
They are simply recognising that from now onwards, they will have competition. Dan K, do not go near them, they want you back on board to STOP you from competing. Simple as that. Go for it Dan, set up a Brazilian competitor and give us what we need, a company centred upon the needs of the customer.
Could NOKIA fend off the EU if they owned the patent rights to using maps?
NOKIA would have every right to make such a purchase of any mapping service provider if it owned the intellectual property rights to transmitting an electronic camera image, taken with the wireless telephones electronic camera, which is then combined with navigation details, provided by the internal navigation system, (common to some of their wireless telephones), to another location where the image could be shown alongside the location of the image on a map. Again, it could make such a purchase if the mapping service provider perhaps also owned such Intellectual Property. In such a case, the European Commission could not refuse such a merger as it would impinge upon the rights of the Intellectual Property. However, surely, without such patent protection, the EU is surely correct to prevent such uncompetitive mergers that suppress external competition by the owners of the Intellectual Property? So the question to ask NOKIA and Navteq Corp is - do the companies own such patent rights?
Competing designs are the only way forward.
Competition between many suppliers is the only way to address the problems of such equipment. The overall problem is that we do not promote enough competition for the supply.
Without competition you do not have any chance of ever getting the best solution for the needs of the soldier on the ground.
Steam powered nation cannot deliver a steam solution ????
Creating steam is the easiest thing to do. Our ancestors were doing that from the beginning of the industrial revolution. Secondly, the steam catapult is VERY
reliable and simple. Suggesting that the space is there for an untried electromagnetic solution that would give out the most amazingly "LOUD" signals as to the location of the carrier, both into the air and the water every time it was used has to be the most stupid thing I have ever heard. If they cannot afford a water tank, a water heater, some pipes and a few valves, then they signal they have no idea how to use the money they have available and have no way to fall back on any other existing aircraft type if they run into trouble with their supply of aircraft for the ships.
This is another example of the long term failure of the idea that by combining all suppliers into one single entity you save costs. Instead, you have one supplier that raises costs to such a level we have only one obsolete aircraft, (the latest USAF fighters are decades ahead our our one), with the same supplier of the ships and no money for proper equipment for the ships.
The United Kingdom once had unrivalled aircraft and ship building industries with many competitive suppliers and a wide range of different solutions to our defence needs. You do not have competitive supply of anything without at least three separate competing suppliers. You do not have a free market place or a free nation without a fully competitive industrial base to stand the nation upon.
This paper does not provide a solution to the primary problem, lack of first stage funding.
This is perhaps the start of a new period of thinking by government. Yes, there are far too many pages of repeated paragraphs and certainly the greater part of the paper is devoted to either large company or large government departmental thinking. But at the heart is the same old story that, decades on, has still not been addressed, the lack of funding at the £250,000 to £2 million level. None of the previous government strategies has succeeded to address this problem.
But what surprised me more than anything was that the individual is not considered to play any real part in innovation. I quote: " Most new ideas do not come as a flash of inspiration to a lone genius inventor; they come from how people create, combine and share their ideas". This thinking goes right back to the 1960's when some bod made the exact same comment and, in my humble opinion, set the idea into stone that no single individual can succeed at innovation. I will put to one side the idea that we now read each others minds like ants and do not need to think as an individual, "we all thought of it at once sir" is surely something out of a communist user manual?
There is nothing about competition; let alone the idea that the driver of innovation is to compete against any existing supplier. That omission shows that there is no understanding of the role of competition in society. But the greatest failure is there is no delivery of new capital on free enterprise terms to the start-up. The idea that a £3,000 voucher will somehow mean that, immediately afterwards, somehow, the capital to pay for all of these additional work OUTSIDE of the local university. I have taken this from "A Capital Spillway Trust":
"I now turn to the particular difficulties presented to the individual inventor when they set out to create new jobs through the application of new thinking embedded in a patent application for a completely new product or process.
But when we turn to inventions of what are completely new products, then we must allow for the time it takes for the full process of development of:
1. the initial ideas, registration and procurement of patent protection,
2. manufacture of initial prototype,
3. design and manufacture of working first stage marketable models,
4. professional evaluation of marketability,
5. re-evaluation of design,
6. world patent applications
7. and subsequent office actions to secure the same,
8. organising and evaluating a basic sales structure,
9. final design for perceived market
10. and ramping up production for the first sales,
11. setting up and paying for the necessary advertising and marketing campaign
12. and finally assembling the team of people that will serve to take up this challenge of a completely new product and taking it to market.
This process takes many years and much investment to complete. For a full free enterprise marketplace to exist, this process must be completed outside of existing industry so that a fully competitive national industrial base is achieved and maintained. To do that you must have completely new businesses coming forward on a regular basis to compete with the existing suppliers to a market, any market. You must replace old businesses with new businesses and old technology with new technology. Defunct products beyond their initial lifespan must be replaced with the best you can turn out. You must have full and completely free competition.
As things stand, the lone inventor is expected to either fund these costs themselves, which is effectively impossible or, to raise funds from a venture capital group that will marginalise them to gain complete control of the start up with the aim to sell on the resulting business to the largest business in that industry within three to five years or, again, the inventor will have to turn to an existing business to fund it. Thus from the outset, the inventor cannot build up a completely new competitive business. This is an important aspect as you therefore do not have a full and free marketplace and thus always, without change, existing customers, including governments, will never be able to see fully competitive supply to a free market."
Sadly this paper does not address any of these first stages with any solution that overcomes their own perception of the first stage failure to provide funding. The £3,000 voucher is, quite frankly, a joke, (with the greatest of respects), as any innovator worth their salt already knows full well that the university is under funded, never has all their own internal research projects fully funded and has the same difficulties as the external innovator in sourcing those crucial first stage funds.
They simply do not exist.
As for the longer term funding of new industry. I ask the minister to go ask ANY "financial adviser" where anyone can get LONG TERM equity Capital. He will find it also does not exist.
There is much to be done to bring the UK government up to speed with shortfalls that were identified decades ago. That is the primary problem to be overcome. This paper does not address those needs.
Turn the coin over and think a little about the implications
None of the respondents have so far seen the obverse side of this. At the moment, if someone lets off an explosion, or fires a bullet at you, you have some chance of survival. But this form of weapon will do exactly what the old science fiction movies depict. A quick squirt of energy and you are nothing but a pile of ash on the ground. Again, you live fifty miles from a war zone and are outside when a sudden flash of light, reflected off anything, permanently blinds you and everyone else with you.
This is not a toy, but a VERY destructive new development that will have a very long range and whose laser beam can move, say, at a distance of ten miles from the source, (while sweeping across the horizon, remember your light beam from a torch), at a speed of several hundred miles per hour. At this moment, we begin to see the beginnings of an era when, if you are going to go to war, the last thing you will want on the battlefield is human beings; they will be too vulnerable. Once that is realised, then war becomes something between automatic robot armies and THEN the whole human race is at a distinct disadvantage.
The whole basis of the Terminator movie series was that, once we reach that point, we become the ultimate target of these robots.
Today, now, this year, this century, we have reached that point in time.
THINK ABOUT THAT? This is not a joke. This is deadly serious.
The Greatest Threat to Security today is lack of investment
Anyone with a bit of savvy can work out how something works that they have in their hands and can take to pieces. So the reference to Cisco in China is an illusion. The Chinese will be able to take control of every single bit of the Cisco gear if they need to. We need to worry about lack of investment in the new, not that which has already been sold.
By the far the greatest threat to Western National security today is that an inventor does not have access to confirmed, long term investors that use only our own national funds from reliable sources of national capital. All M&A as well as their prequels, the VC's, source capital from any source available. Particularly Sovereign Investment Funds from other countries. The investment community has been, for many decades now, locked into the cycle of take control of any invention so that it can be rolled forward as fast as possible into an M&A. To achieve that demanded the creation of a cycle of refusal to invest for the long term, allied to any port of call for the invention, just as long as the VC can get out fast and profitably and the M&A community can sell it into a large corporation. In fact, it has been precisely this that has driven the creation of the unstable financial condition of these "trading banks" who have used any means, to create vapour-ware funds to keep the whole thing going.
Yes, on the one hand the chickens have come home to roost, financially, but no one today in any form of government has any idea just how difficult it is to raise capital for a new invention where the criteria are a long term commitment to the inventor and his vision for the future of his or her company. Such capital simply does not exist. Every high street is full to the brim with shops selling mortgages for a house. I know of no single shop anywhere in the United Kingdom where I can walk in and get access to such capital from a national source. Let alone that is reliable, has a long term track record to a firm commitment to see me yes, me, that silly irascible individual, the inventor safely capitalised for the long term development of his business vision. Not to make too fine a point of this, I repeat, such capital simply does not exist..
This very week, I am faced with the reality that the best thing I can do with my inventions is to got to another countries Sovereign Investment Fund and ask for investment. The UK , unlike, say, Norway, does not have one. We squandered North Sea Oil for what? Massive buildings full of civil servants playing musical chairs desperately trying to cover up that they have nothing to do. But ask them to help a British inventor and they all throw up their hands in amazement and show you the door..... That is by the far the greatest threat to the long term future of our national intellectual property base. And, who cares?
Certainly not the United Kingdom Government.
Has Frontline become a victim of the locked up credit markets?
This is very sad news. But I do wonder if the problem is entirely caused by the fact that even the major banks are not in any position to lend to each other due to the ongoing problems within the credit markets. In that case, it will only be the major companies, (for example, Google), that have full access to their own finances that will be able to bid for the spectrum. That was why we have not entered the 700MHz auction ourselves. The FCC knew all along that their method of running the auction would inevitably discourage smaller companies from bidding. But with the lock up of the credit markets, the auction is an impossible target for all but a very few, very large businesses.
The Chinese are a very cultured people
"or buy guns to overthrow China's non-democratic government, then it is bad"
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that I do not believe it makes any sense, anywhere on the planet, to try and overthrow a government by force.
Secondly and in my humble opinion, much more importantly, we should all recognise that it is strong debate, in words and by writing, on blog sites such as this, that do more for the future of freedom world wide than any threat of violence.
Finally, I believe that the Chinese people will, in time, peacefully, return to their classical roots of a vibrant culture based upon Confusion principles. That in turn will lead to freedom for their people, debate and peaceful co-existence with the rest of the planet.
Underneath the short term heel of corrupt communism, (a blink of the eye compared to their long history), they are a very cultured people and when they return to their classic origins, they will prove worthy companions for the rest of us here on this small planet.
This reminds me of the "Stokes" era and the same misguided attempts to promote the UK motor industry
Back in the late 1960's early 1970's one would come across individuals from the old DTI, (Department of Trade and Industry) that called themselves "Industrialists" because their boss, the UK government, owned large portions of what had been thriving industries in private hands that had, by then, become moribund and bloated by social employment created by these self same "industrialists". All sorts of schemes were floated to improve the competitiveness of the industries they "owned". One such involved a man called Stokes whose job was to bring all the disparate parts of the UK motor industry into one company to, yes, you have guessed it, "promote".......... In the end, it all came to nothing, the whole idea proved to be impossible to do within any government structure and Stokes became Lord Stokes and our once world beating motor industry..... evaporated. So all we are seeing here is a repeat of the same old story. The Civil Service do not trust private individuals or small privately owned business. I suspect that derives from their own difficulties with dealing with private sub contractors. You may have noticed Tony Blair once used to proclaim against "Individualism". Back in the 1970's the head of the Inland Revenue once openly stated in a speech that "The self employed are the scum that floats upon the surface of society".
So here we have our national government unable to even conceive that a private business could promote itself and needs their help. Why would they think that? What was it that started them thinking that private industry would need government help? With the greatest of respects to Lord Digby Jones, I ask him to please explain to us here on The Register how this exercise has come about and who thought of it and to tell us if the governemnt was approached by private industry or was this an idea floated by large public company suppliers to the governments internal "industrialists"?
I am not trying to appear negative. I am trying to form a debate that will prevent the repeat of previous failed exercises. Moreover exercises that led, in the end, to the collapse of whole sectors of British Industry.
The Register has shown, with their masterful snatch of the governments URL, the capacity of the free minded individual to move very quickly indeed to fill a need. What has been missing for decades now has been a source of Free Enterprise based funding for those self same "individuals" from the capital base of the nation..... that left them free....... to compete against the largest companies.
It is not new government inspired "exercises" we need, it is simply better access to free market capital to get on and do what we are already very good at, given the chance to succeed.
The nations success comes from masterful action by small groups of individuals demonstrating verve and imagination. We need a capital base that supports that, not a return to government inspired intervention that eventually suppresses innovation in the long term interest of the largest companies, who are in turn keen to suppress the expansion of those smaller individualistic businesses that would otherwise be able to bid for the governments business. And why would I say that? I will bet my right arm that the costs of meeting the requirements to become "eligible" for support under the rules of the exercise being contemplated will make it impossible for the smaller innovative companies to even get through the door in the first place.
With the greatest of respects Lord Digby Jones, you are a large public business, large government person and you have just been left in a cloud of dust by a classic "Turbinia" style action by The Register. You need to learn to trust the imaginations of all those individuals that, given the chance and access to the free enterprise capital they need to compete, would lead the way forward to new success for the nation, but in competition against the interest of all the largest public companies that today you appear to ..........represent......?
Create a new OPEC from the major users, rather than as before, from the producers
The price of oil was inflated by a group of oil producers who created a cartel called OPEC, Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. So why not turn the tables and close the free market for oil and creat an new organisation called OPIC; Organisation for Petroleum Importing Countries and then set a price OPIC will accept as realistic and refuse to buy at any higher price?
A free market is where any purchaser is free NOT to purchase.
Yes, for a while, we would have to live without oil while the exporters tried to exploit the new market by refusing to sell. But every market has its price. In the end, they either give up exporting or accept the price.
Yes, it would give the likes of China the potential to buy the production and hold us to ransom. Any middle man with deep enough pockets can try and hold the rest of us to ransom.
Food for thought?
The best location will be the deepest valley they can find
If they look carefully, they will discover that some of their images show the slightest sign of an inversion at the entrance to deep valleys. Mars has the deepest valleys, much deeper than Earth. Temperature rises at 2.7 degrees per thousand feet as you drop down through any atmosphere. A 10,000 foot deep valley will be 27 degrees warmer at the bottom than the surface. Add to that adiabatic temperature effects on the sun-ward side of the valley, (just like we find on the sides of a mountain), will drive a circulation of the warmer air towards that opening at the surface. That in turn creates the visible inversion we see in the images.
Take a look at 195-170505-0449-6-3D-01-Coprates_H and again, 195-170505-0449-6-3D-01-Coprates_L and look at the large valley in the background. I am convinced that what we can see is an inversion caused by moist air making contact with the much drier and colder surface atmosphere.
If that is correct then we have a very real chance of finding moisture and thus life at the bottom, or, on the sun-ward slopes.
I am sure they can drop into the deepest valley possible. In my humble opinion, they must do so.
The deep flaw is non-availability of development capital
As an inventor, I can only fall back on my own experience. I filed five patent applications 16th January 1989 and, simply because I could not afford to, (had no access to the capital needed), I left three in abeyance and carried on with the other two. So I had two UK patent applications. Now, when you get to the stage of applying for anything other than your initial UK patent, (long before you have any idea of a grant of the original application), you have to make a choice. if you wish to apply for a European patent, you first of all have to formally abandon your UK application. So, having done that I then found, what with the costs of using a patent agent, I could file the applications, but was then faced with the costs of process, search and examination. By that time I was in the middle of a massive recession and had, several times, to ask for more time to pay the filing and search fees. At each point where I could not afford to pay the dues I was granted an extension in time, but at the same time fined for not paying on time and at the end of that process, early 1992, I was both unemployed and on welfare while being faced with a bill amounting to the price of a small house to fund the European patent process for two patent applications. Ergo, the system formally abandoned me.
A close friend and associate loaned me a small sum and using that, and, as I had filed a Patent Cooperation Treaty Application, (PCT), allowing me the right to apply to every country, I filed an application for the United States of America. At the same time, I also set into motion the translation of the very costly, (but very well drafted by the expensive patent agent - no complaints), File copy agreed with the international division of the UK patent office into Korean and Japanese and had them filed as applications. (I could not afford to pay for the translations except by tiny instalments and that in turn brought me into an amazing situation with my Japan patent agent who had never known any Japanese inventor being unfunded). Something quite unheard of in Japan as the inventor is set at the pinnacle of Japanese industrial society.
I found that dealing with the US patent office an interesting experience. They accept that ordinary individuals file patents and do not immediately, (unlike the UK patent office), demand that you employ a patent agent. Indeed, if they had, I would not have been able to proceed. Over the next few years I worked my way through a mountain of "Office Actions" to the point where the US patent office agreed they would grant, but I needed professional help with drafting claims that met the US patent office requirements.
I then, by dint of persistence on the phone found myself an agent who agreed to draft claims. To cut a very long story short, I was granted my first US patent in Sept 1998, nearly ten years after first filing. Almost immediately, without any intervention on my part Japan granted me a patent based upon the original translation of the original record copy that had been passed through WIPO.
I am now the proud owner of the Japan patent and three US patents, (the original and two continuances), and have, on the face of it, a very valuable intellectual property holding. You would be wrong to think that.
I still owe the original UK patent agent 15,000 UK Pounds. Over the period since filing in 1989, I suppose I have paid out many many thousands and have never received a penny in return. Moreover, every year, I have to pay out patent maintenance fees to keep them in use.
In my humble opinion, the patent system is deeply flawed. Not because of the way it is organised, but because unless you have access to substantial capital, the patents we are granted are, very effectively, worthless. Indeed, more than worthless, very costly.
The deep flaw is non availability of development capital. Please, do not mention Venture Capital. It does not exist unless you are prepared to give away your patents, making a mockery of the whole idea of free enterprise and free competition. At my level, Venture capital is a not funny joke. Period.
The entire international patent system, not just the UK, needs to recognise that it is embedded in a very cosy, extremely well paid occupation, employment totally protected by government treaty and law; for everyone, except the individual inventor.
The overall loss to the nations income, in just my own case, must run to billions. (I hold the original patents for any wireless transmitter, which includes a camera and a navigation system.... all your GPS enabled camera phones for example), filed 16th January 1989 no less.
Disregard the other of the two original applications, (that I persisted with), which is left hanging to cut costs and again any other ideas I have had, (usually several per year that have never seen the light of day and now regard that I have just started the whole process all over again, but now with a UK patent office that simply will not deal with you unless you employ a patent agent. (No doubt on the assumption that, as he has a handsome income, everybody else involved with filing patents must either be as wealthy or corporate and thus well funded).
There is no incentive for anyone to make any change to the existing system. The European examiners, (as New Scientist noted when the EPO was first established), earn a very handsome income. I cannot imagine any UK examiner earning anything less. My patent agent back in 1989 was charging handsomely. Everyone, from civil servants to lawyers, everyone inside the system earns a good stipend. No one and I repeat for effect; No One, has any incentive to create the funding we need to be able to compete against the incumbents to the present market place for our "new" products.
They all know in their hearts that we keep on applying for no other reason than it presents the greatest intellectual challenge, with the smallest reward.... and we go on because, at the end of the day, we can stand tall as individuals in a desert ocean of total indifference knowing they cannot.
Not one of them invented anything themselves and they have the brass cheek to look down upon us because we are financially poor.......
Christopher Francis Coles.
Very proud to call himself; Inventor.
Is anyone sure that they have all the answers? Google certainly does not.
We are living in the overhang from the past where, when the old 78RPM record was created and at the same time, others realised that, if you could find a good singer and a good song and you put them together on one side of that disc, people would queue up to buy the disc for the simple reason that the purchase gave them access to something they had not been able to do before. They could carry the singer and song into their homes to enjoy at their leisure. They owned that performance. Nothing changed through 45RPM, reel to reel tapes, (I have a Beatles album on reel to reel), cassette tapes, 8 track...... you name it.
The particular features seem to have been forgotten. Someone sought out the singer and the song, checked their provenance and ensured the quality of performance. The product gave the purchaser a quality purchase. Something to treasure.
On the other side, the singer and song writer became successful precisely because their success was linked to the success of the manufacturer of the product, the disc, or tape...
For the time being, because the original systems are still in place, the customer can still get access to a quality product. Someone has earned a living from seeking out the singer and the song. But for how much longer?
Yes, for the time being, kids can get their song for free, or nearly so. And, again, the likes of Napster and Apple have a steady stream of product to sell. But for how much longer?
I see the product in full circle. There will come a time when some bright individual will start the whole process all over again. Why? Because the existing model will not deliver that "Special" gift.... a quality product, worked on and defined by someone with the aiming point of making a good income for themselves and others around them, by providing something the general public cannot get otherwise. The circle will come right back to the beginning. Anyone remember Skiffle? it was all the rage just before the Beatles arrived.
So the idea that you can use a simplistic model to pay the singer and the song writer,....... sometime in the future when they have satisfied some bureaucrat that they deserve a piece of the pie, is to my mind, an unworkable structure that will, in time, collapse. Not because it can be imposed, but because that wonderful thing the free market place will let it happen.
Right now, Google think they have an answer. Yes, in a way, they do, but for how long and for which services? Their only interest is the likelihood that a proportion of the users of their system will "hit" on a link to an advertiser. They have a captive market.... for advertising. Nothing more.
They do not have a "special" product, only a captive customer, ....... and then only if that customer buys a phone with their new operating system.
So what is the base market for the mobile phone platform?
I have repeatedly challenged that while the major income stream from such devices is undoubtedly voice, the base market was always security. The primary reason for giving a phone to a young girl by her parents is not so she can talk her head off to her friends, (the primary income stream), but to be certain that, if she gets into a scrape, she can phone home, or a friend and get help.
The primary market, the base of the pyramid of the market is personal safety. The pinnacle is all those expensive tools that make the new phones specifications so impressive.
Google do not own the rights to that base market place, personal security. Neither will their new operating system. None of their new partners own the rights to sending an image from their customers wireless phone in either the USA or Japan, where the image carries location details, for example, GPS location information.
Nor, do any of them own the copyright IP for the world use of such a system. Only the people around an individual, an Englishman, who filed an innocuous patent in 1989.......are able to say with any certainty that they have some rights to that base marketplace. He did, after all, think of it first.
So anyone coming forward with a system that addresses that primary base of the pyramid, personal safety, will automatically exclude Google and their nice new operating system. Parents will buy the phone with the safety feature. Every phone gives them voice, of Google or whatever.... Only one will give them certainty of safety for their daughter.
Food for thought Google, with all your money and market power, you do not own it all and what is there, is on the open market...........
In my humble opinion, the Google strategy has a fatal flaw, it simply does not control, or address, the base market for a mobile phone.
Comment not for publishing
I add this to back up my previous comment. No one has heard of me. I am a British inventor that filed, and eventually, in 1998 was granted, the first of three US patents, (I had to abandon the UK and European as I was destitute and could not afford to continue in Europe at the time, 1992), and a Japanese patent. www.gpns.com and also www.gpns.com/patents.html.
We tried to found GPNS based upon the patents, but no one would acknowledge that we hold the rights not only to the phone, but also the operating system, the right to transmit and all the back end functions. So we have been stuffed into a corner. But as time moves forward, we are now in the position of not only owning some patents that will, yes, run out in 2012, but also all the copyright IP on the GPNS web site.
Sooner or later, they will have to deal with us.
The inventor? Me, Chris Coles.
Shortage of Fasteners is the core problem
About a decade ago, the major companies decided to grab a chance to reduce their manufacturing costs and instead of maintaining their previous long standing relationship with countless small businesses that had supplied them so successfully over the previous decades, they dumped the lot and outsourced to the likes of China. Two things happened in short order. 1 a very large number of those previously sound, well managed small businesses went to the wall. As an example, some 800, yes, eight hundred, small specialist steel mills completely disappeared in PA. 2 The executives that had driven the change got their promotion and the investors made their profit. It hardly takes a brain surgeon to realise that the 2nd group were not about to tell the world, let alone their senior management that they had made a bad decision, particularly as the new suppliers of those fasteners had not yet got up to speed. (A previous comment referred to a large store room with piles of fasteners was correct). You see, what happens is the old expensive, (relatively), stock gets run down first and it is some time before the new stock gives any sign of problems.
But it gets worse. Remember the pet food scandal? Now, you have an industrial sector that HAD been rooted into a long term relationship with suppliers that, if you had a problem, were not too far from you, had every reason to worry about quality and were managed by small business owners who personally lost out if the business failed. Now, you have suppliers that in turn sub contract to a supply chain in a foreign country where there is NO long term record of maintaining that crucial interest in the success of the business. You see, you do not have the same business culture in a communist country because the culture is now dependant upon the local political cadre and the consequential corruption. And please, do not start to argue otherwise, we have had so many examples lately.
It takes great skill to create a sound supply chain for something that seems to be insignificant, a simple fastener. But fasteners are not simple. To manufacture you need an absolutely reliable source of the material, often very specialist alloys that have to be forged in small batches and you must also have a very reliable quality control. So, now you have a rod, or say a 10 foot long bar of your special alloy. Now, you need to use the finest machine tools and highly skilled employees to produce these fasteners, at the highest production rates possible. (When you need millions of identical fasteners, you have to produce them in seconds on specialist automatic lathes). And that brings us to the next stage of this problem. If I handed you the tooling for such a lathe, you would not give it a second glance. Without the knowledge of the difficulties that have to be overcome, hour by hour, to keep those machines running and producing those millions of fasteners, each to the highest tolerances, you cannot possibly know the pitfalls of outsourcing to a poor supply chain.
My heart goes out to the junior execs in Boeing that must have been discarded while the bean counters chucked them and their "home built" supply chain, who also got discarded. The next chapter is when another war breaks out, they will not be able to supply a thing, as all the old suppliers have long gone.
Some time hence, the USA will come to bitterly regret the loss of all those small, dedicated suppliers that they tossed to one side. I will bet my right arm on that.
Skype made two mistakes caused by losing sight of the customers needs
In my humble opinion, Skype made the dreadful mistake, as soon as they were bought, to try and recoup their purchase cost by making the handsets very expensive. They should have sold the handsets at a discount as without the handset, and only using the PC, (which often does not have a satisfactory microphone), they had no new customer. Also, they should have concentrated upon the sale of the service and improving the service. When we make a call from a conventional phone, we simply type in the number and the system does all the rest. We are immediately connected, (or told we cannot by a different ring tone). But with Skype, we have a number of different and relatively complicated options. All I ever want is a replication of the ordinary phone. If I want to make a video call, simply press an additional button. Same with a conference call.
Skype was being led by people that were so orientated onto money payback, they lost sight of the customer and the service that the customer needs. But then, such investment should be entirely equity based and as such, much longer term.
Galileo is the new infrastructure that will support future European industry
Infrastructure, roads, railways, bridges, docks, hospitals, schools, universities; you name it - all these things give a nation, or, in this case a group of nations, the ability to grow. Intellectually, economically in stature. They mark out the nations as civilised, intelligent, affluent.
The UK has a particular problem with politicians that have never had the experience of making something from scratch, from the work of their bare hands and with the dint of their own talent and skills. Of all the wonderful, exciting things that any human being can do, it is create something new from their own individual personal resources. A product, service or customer experience that is that one step better than any other that was before.
We would all still be sitting in a cave, on a rock, no carpet, furniture, plates, cups or any vehicle of any sort; without that creativity of the working human being. It is this drive to constantly better ourselves that has taken the human race from the stone age cave to today. If we step back from the challenge to better ourselves, we step back from civilisation in all it finest glory.
Infrastructure such as Galileo is essential. It will invigorate our students in our universities and drive new businesses to employ those erstwhile students after they leave their university in challenging employment.
There is no choice. We must not turn our back on such investment.
Google should remember Nextwave from the last major spectrum auction
The last time the FCC auctioned off a large chunk of spectrum a company called Nextwave won the auction, but then found themselves thrust between a rock and a hard place by the FCC who set out to destroy Nextwave in a series of court actions that had nothing whatever to do with helping the winner to succeed. In the end, after a very prolonged battle Nextwave won in the courts but at the cost of having to abandon their long term plans to compete with the existing incumbants.
I have no reason to believe that the FCC have any notion of the long term damage their court actions against Nextwave did to the ruputation of the United States as a once free enterprise nation.
I am an inventor. Not an artist, sculptor, writer, singer or composer. My thoughts confined to paper are not something I can sell by the thousand to an admiring audience. The thrills of discovery are ethereal and ephemeral and not something to hang on a wall, or listen to of a quiet night at home with some friends. My thoughts are; however, the bedrock of a free society that thrives upon the countless goods and services stemming from those dust swirls of momentary idealistic creativity called inventions.
We look into the future, not the past. Have no need for the instant gratification of a wet canvas. We rely on many others for the sublimation of the initial idea into reality. Try imagining creating… anything and not being able to talk to anyone about it. Have an idea that you know in your heart is good and reliable and worthwhile and that you must bounce off another thinker and risk having that idea stolen, without a single thought. Not even a thank you. New, fresh, inventive thought; is extremely fragile.
Copyright does not protect us; is not designed to. The slightest slip between the thought forming in our heads and the office of the government patent office and the idea is gone, lost, forever not your own. Now, realise that, every idea we get costs money. To file for; to pay the attorney to delineate; to travel for sometimes decades with all the costs of a small business yet never finding anyone that will pay that extra mile to see the idea into production. Never any income, regarded by any banker as a nuisance at best and a malingerer most of the time. Remember, it can be years before we are granted the patent itself. Up to that moment, we have nothing but an idea that “might” be worthwhile developing.
When we at last arrive at the grant of that paper contract called a patent and when all our troubles should be behind us; instead, we now inhabit another even more demanding and dangerous world. Government makes us a part of the industrial might of a nation by granting that patent. And follow that grant by ensuring that we become their slave to a process that demands a regularly increasing payment of maintenance fees, (remember we have no income without exploitation), over its twenty year lifetime.
In that case, surely, government should have a mind to see that these initial seeds of the nation’s future prosperity are protected from the frosts of monopoly and overbearing competition. Instead, we find that government is, on the one hand, completely indifferent to our reality or, on the other, only prepared to sustain us, on a whim, to the smallest extent unless we break our vow, (implicit in the grant of that patent to sustain competition); by walking through the door of an existing competitor.
And just to add insult to injury, they toss their heads in complete indifference to the fact that there is no fully free, free enterprise based, financial marketplace; wherein we should be able to capitalise our new ideas, competitively, against the incumbent industry.
Instead encouraging the short term capitalisation regime of the venture capitalist that only serves to reinforce monopoly through the refusal to entertain investment in the small local business that has an aiming point of long term independence; The utter stupidity that we cannot be permitted to be both free and successful.
The final indignity is to discover the governments’ complicity in keeping the monopoly supplier of yesterday in place rather than accept that thinking has moved on and there is a new game in town. How dare I suggest that I have a better idea? Who is this idiot that thinks beyond their station? We are a Department of Government, how dare they state we are in the wrong?
They are talking about an inventor; arguably, the strongest competitor in a competitive society.
It is a travesty that we are both trammelled by government rules for our own actions and at one and the same time distained by that same institution. No one seems to have given any thought to the long term implications of a refusal on the part of government to protect that inventor. We need protecting, have no other financial means of sustaining a normal family life, raising children, building homes, all the things you take for granted.
Imagine please, take a moment to think about this; you will be expected, yes, expected; to work for decades without any income from your efforts. And no, I am not talking about the hardship everyone goes through to gain an education. That phase lasts until our early twenties. No, I am talking about the rest of your working lives.
No one will sustain you. No banker will lend you money for your efforts to secure that piece of paper called a patent. Look back along your career and think what your life would have been like with no income from your primary work? Dig a trench for the foundations of your new home and a lender sees immediately the onward worth of your efforts. Not so the inventor. Worse still, everyone imagines we will immediately become a millionaire. Surely, there are many examples of such success? The truth is that by far the majority of inventions never see the light of day; are never prototyped, capitalised, or exploited; a veritable wasteland of lost effort, lost lives.
It is an interesting dichotomy that a nation will perceive an inventor sits at the pinnacle of their industrial society, supposedly values their efforts, yet does not recognise any duty to support them. Try imagining being, let us say for example a Supreme Court Judge, performing all the duties, reading all the papers, transcribing all the thoughts related to that occupation while at the same time, on top of your duties; working for 12 hours a day for a pittance and coming home exhausted to your “proper” work. Have you ever regularly worked a 24 hour day? I have had to do just that, at least once a week, every week for years at a time.
Look around you and think how much your life would change without that income you have received every month without fail since you first qualified. Imagine all those years of work without any financial reward for your efforts. Scorned for being poor by every bank manager you have ever met. No money for golf or flying, often not even for a simple home of your own. Constantly scrounging help from friends to keep going forward with your ideas. Importantly, the individual inventor cannot go bankrupt to alleviate their finances as any other entrepreneur can and start again. They would lose the rights to their intellectual property the moment they do that. So that option is totally closed off from them. They are thus often forced into the direst financial circumstances with no way out other than to abandon their chosen profession.
That is the life of the individual inventor today.
We must stop believing in the idea of investment for the few promoting success only at the top of society and government subsistence handouts for the rest.
Only a fully competitive free enterprise based society can succeed; and to achieve that success, everyone must take responsibility and play their part to encourage; those individuals that step forward to try and to succeed, as best they can, within their own communities.
Human competition is the most natural influence and must be encouraged at every level. That is surely the governments’ greatest responsibility?
The FCC has a problem with some US patents that grant rights of transmission
What the FCC is struggling with is that there are several US telecoms patents that have been granted that, as a part of their claims, have been granted the right to transmit over any network. They have to pay a royalty to the patent holder as they do not have a license to grant their own license to transmit in those circumstances. They are thus trying to get around the patents by trying to make the auction a sale of an open system. The inventor will still have a right to a royalty on the license sale proceeds and he will still end up being paid for his rights. The wheels of justice move ever so slow, but they will get there in the end.
For the record, this is a part of my recent submission to the FCC
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington DC 20554 Thursday June 7th, 2007
Electronic Submission via the FCC ECFS comment filing system
Comment On Google Proposals Regarding Service Rules for 700MHz Band
Spectrum WT Docket No. 06-150; WT Docket No. 06-169; PS Docket No. 06-229; WT Docket No. 96-86
First of all I remind you of my letter to Michael K. Powell dated October 26, 2001 on the letterhead of GPNS Corporation under the CC Docket No. 94-102 in which we stated:
“but we also have been granted Patent rights by another branch of Government that impinges upon the workings of the FCC. We enjoy “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale or selling…”
We ask if there has been adequate consideration of the matter of the grant of licenses.
1. Whether for transmission between a portable wireless transmitter and a base
2. Or, for example, location and monitoring Services.
Have potential licensees, (in particular where it must have been known from the outset, that there would be conflict with the already granted US patent rights that give us now our intellectual property base), been kept informed that our right to grant a license might well impinge upon the license being sold by the FCC?
Has consideration been given to the need to recompense us for the royalty income that will entail from the grant of such licenses?”
The FCC never did answer the questions raised, and considering the potentially very substantial sums of money involved; perhaps this is an appropriate moment to do so before the next auction being mooted of the 700 MHz spectrum?
The patents in question, 5,712,679 6,181,373 and 6,469,735
Operators are SIMPLY NOT INTERESTED
I can only speak from my own personal experience, mobile operators are simply not interested in innovative new services.
Successful Innovation requires as many as possible new forms
Successful innovation needs as many as possible new forms of a device to come to the fore, as often as possible. The Japanese have an inbuilt advantage with innovation, their reluctance to let any single idea or form of a product sit for very long in the manufacturing stage.
The faster you let new thinking make an input and the smaller your manufacturing run, the better you can meet market perceptions with new variations of the same product.
We saw the opposite here in the UK with a fixation on trying to get the maximum length of product run for the minimum product development cost. By the time the business can see that the market is fed up with the currect product, it is too late. Some other innovator has stolen your market from right under your nose. Ergo, we lost cameras, pocket calculators, you name it.
Never try and control your market by any other means than fresh innovation of the product and always test your market by constantly revising the product to suite new perceptions.
And what happened to due process?
The most fundamental foundation stone of the law is a matter of a right to due process. I have the absolute right to be tried before a court of law and twelve good and true citizens. That in turn gives me the right to question my accuser. Thus in any aspect of the process of the law, I am able to know who my accuser is, to question them and know exactly what my crime is.
This change in the law removes due process. How does it get into statute?
Will someone that has the resources available pleae research this and tell us the answers to my questions.
Or is it that in fact, no one in LAW cares anymore about the fundamental rights of a citizen?
Just how low have we dropped?
And who will know?
Is this an example of total totalitarianism? (excuse the long word).
How do we find out about the posting being unacceptable?
Are we to be told when and if we have in some way digressed?
What are the teaching rules when, instead of a detailed act of Parliament, we have to refer back to a single person that cannot, ever, be able to interpret the law in the widest sense.
Does the interest of the USA, or Israel become paramount when a decision is made, regardless if the interests of free speech here in the UK?
How do we defend free speech, when now we cannot speak for fear of unknowingly being taken off a web site for making a comment we believe is true?
I think the next election should be an expression of the need for change and any party that wishes to win should argue for a change to this law. It represents a total rejection of the whole idea of free speech.
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know
- If you've bought DRM'd film files from Acetrax, here's the bad news
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month