Oh pooh. Progress in the Science and useful Arts is NOT the same as commercial exploitation of the implementation of a patent.
If you go back to the 1780s and look at the original writings, the intent is to encourage the spread of knowledge. And clearly that is exactly how patents are constructed. They are a contract between the inventor and the government. The government grants an exclusive right to the material disclosed in exchange for a PUBLISHED (and not copyrighted - patents, by statute cannot be copyrighted) description of the invention and how to practice the invention.
Commercial exploitation is a secondary issue. The primary one is public disclosure of the SCIENCE and ARTS used.
Suppose I (A) have a way of accomplishing a technological miracle. And then I get a patent on it.
Somebody else (B) comes along and patents the improvement of doing that miracle on the internet.
We guess what - neither A nor B can actually practice the miracle itself on the internet. B can't because A has the patent on the miracle. B has the improvement patent which describes doing the miracle on the internet so A can't do it on the internet.
Patents DON'T give you the right to practice your invention, only the right to prevent someone else from doing it.
That's ridiculous. Subsidized demand for solar panels may not favor any particular solar panel manufacturer, but sure as shit and taxes it favors solar panel manufacturers over wind turbine or other alternative energy manufacturers.
It's always bad policy to favor one particular technology. Governments have a terrible track record with these sorts of decisions.
Maintaining population was a big deal. Women were married as soon as they hit puberty and were expected to be pregnant except when nursing. Few women made it to old age.
So yes humans can survive without modern medicine. But it isn't as nice.
While what doesn't kill you makes you stronger none of this gives you an assessment on whether or not a population is better off over their lives with this exposure or not.
>why does the global atmospheric CO2 concentration (whilst obviously increasing year after year) have a seasonal oscillation
Seasonal oscillations are perfectly consistent within the context of a next zero. Just make the measurement at the same time each year. It's time series analysis 101.
> It might be the production of carbon-rich soil that you're overlooking.
Production of carbon-rich soil is one part of the forest carbon cycle. There is also a balancing destruction of carbon rich soil due to biological and chemical oxidation. It's why ecologists talk about a forest carbon storage capacity. If forests just accumulated carbon forever there would be no 'capacity'.
> Everyone knows that trees give us all oxygen so we can breathe
I certainly don't know any such thing. In fact I thought forests were net zero oxygen because when trees die the decay of the tree consumes as much oxygen as the tree produced during its life. Not to mention that of course at night the tree is burning the sugars it made during the day by photosynthesis.
Plankton is where there is a possible net oxygen increase because when they go dead they can sink, and when that happens they don't decay.
It's worse than that. Patent trolls have no operations other than developing or buying patents and making money off of licenses and infringement suits. As a result there is no way to counter sue for infringement because they don't do anything that might violate a patent.
Apple may have a bundle of dubious patents that they are being aggressive with, but at least they have operations which are vulnerable to the same tactics they are practicing.
Using open source products to develop a product is a tricky proposition. For example, you may link to an LGPL library and think you are OK, but what if that LGPL component links to a GPL library?
Then throw in the murky world of software patents and no wonder why a corporate lawyer may have strong opinions about building a business on open source.
Process patents describe a series of specific steps and conditions under which the transformation occurs. As such they aren't patenting a natural law, merely the specific conditions under which desirable effects of that law can be realized.
Well it's more like a 2% return because it gets issued quarterly.
10% yields are fairly unusual, and are typically a sign that a company is hurting. They are often the result of a big dive in a company's stock and are likely to be reduced because the thing that caused the company stock to dive is that their profits are diving - and the dividends are paid out of profits. Sometimes you see 10% dividends in highly leveraged situations or from companies that have special tax treatment. Be careful with these as these dividends can be volatile or require some gyrations on your part at tax time.
If you are a dividend investor the key thing is the long term record of increasing dividends. Apple isn't a blip on the radar compared with some of the better companies in this regard.
Buying your own stock and issuing dividends is essentially admission that you don't have any idea of what to do with the money.
Companies that buy their own stock are notorious for having bad timing.
In this case the timing of the dividend is crummy too because it's pretty likely that by this time next year the tax rates on dividends will be a lot higher than they are now.
Slashdot Mirror
If you open that bag of worms it means any farmer could sue any other farmer for insects and pollen going across a property line.
It would be a hoot for sure.
So I guess that means complete politicization of scientific inquiry. That will work just great.
I guess somebody didn't get the memo about GPS searches requiring a warrant.
Nobody is forcing you to walk through those check points. Just turn around and walk back out if you don't want to be searched.
If you volunteer to be searched by going through the check point a warrant is not needed.
Or at least that's how they justify it.
Oh pooh. Progress in the Science and useful Arts is NOT the same as commercial exploitation of the implementation of a patent.
If you go back to the 1780s and look at the original writings, the intent is to encourage the spread of knowledge. And clearly that is exactly how patents are constructed. They are a contract between the inventor and the government. The government grants an exclusive right to the material disclosed in exchange for a PUBLISHED (and not copyrighted - patents, by statute cannot be copyrighted) description of the invention and how to practice the invention.
Commercial exploitation is a secondary issue. The primary one is public disclosure of the SCIENCE and ARTS used.
That's not how patents work.
Suppose I (A) have a way of accomplishing a technological miracle. And then I get a patent on it.
Somebody else (B) comes along and patents the improvement of doing that miracle on the internet.
We guess what - neither A nor B can actually practice the miracle itself on the internet. B can't because A has the patent on the miracle. B has the improvement patent which describes doing the miracle on the internet so A can't do it on the internet.
Patents DON'T give you the right to practice your invention, only the right to prevent someone else from doing it.
What I want to know is where to place my knees on the steering wheel while I am texting and operating my Sat Nav or DVD player.
That's ridiculous. Subsidized demand for solar panels may not favor any particular solar panel manufacturer, but sure as shit and taxes it favors solar panel manufacturers over wind turbine or other alternative energy manufacturers.
It's always bad policy to favor one particular technology. Governments have a terrible track record with these sorts of decisions.
True, but prior to the development of modern medicine average lifespan was a heck of a lot shorter.
In Rome life expectancy at birth was about 25.
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
Maintaining population was a big deal. Women were married as soon as they hit puberty and were expected to be pregnant except when nursing. Few women made it to old age.
So yes humans can survive without modern medicine. But it isn't as nice.
Yes, and in the 11th century about 50% of children died before attaining the age of 5.
Well, of course that's the thing.
While what doesn't kill you makes you stronger none of this gives you an assessment on whether or not a population is better off over their lives with this exposure or not.
>why does the global atmospheric CO2 concentration (whilst obviously increasing year after year) have a seasonal oscillation
Seasonal oscillations are perfectly consistent within the context of a next zero. Just make the measurement at the same time each year. It's time series analysis 101.
> It might be the production of carbon-rich soil that you're overlooking.
Production of carbon-rich soil is one part of the forest carbon cycle. There is also a balancing destruction of carbon rich soil due to biological and chemical oxidation. It's why ecologists talk about a forest carbon storage capacity. If forests just accumulated carbon forever there would be no 'capacity'.
> Everyone knows that trees give us all oxygen so we can breathe
I certainly don't know any such thing. In fact I thought forests were net zero oxygen because when trees die the decay of the tree consumes as much oxygen as the tree produced during its life. Not to mention that of course at night the tree is burning the sugars it made during the day by photosynthesis.
Plankton is where there is a possible net oxygen increase because when they go dead they can sink, and when that happens they don't decay.
It's worse than that. Patent trolls have no operations other than developing or buying patents and making money off of licenses and infringement suits. As a result there is no way to counter sue for infringement because they don't do anything that might violate a patent.
Apple may have a bundle of dubious patents that they are being aggressive with, but at least they have operations which are vulnerable to the same tactics they are practicing.
Using open source products to develop a product is a tricky proposition. For example, you may link to an LGPL library and think you are OK, but what if that LGPL component links to a GPL library?
Then throw in the murky world of software patents and no wonder why a corporate lawyer may have strong opinions about building a business on open source.
Cue the deniers.
Fact is this is La Nina in action.
Process patents describe a series of specific steps and conditions under which the transformation occurs. As such they aren't patenting a natural law, merely the specific conditions under which desirable effects of that law can be realized.
I think On the Origin of Species might count as prior art.
Yes, and you could have run your vehicle on ethanol or biodiesel 20 years ago.
There has been little to no progress in replacing fossil fuels with biofuels.
I have been hearing about biofuels since the early 80's so I don't think they have a record that is any better than fusion.
Brazil is still mostly dependent on fossil fuels. Gasoline there is a 25/75 ethanol/gas blend.
A population reduction - are you volunteering?
Apple is neither the most profitable or wealthiest company. They merely have the highest market capitalization.
Perhaps you should learn something about economics and business.
> That's REFINEMENT, big difference.
Nonsense. Even the original Latin root innovare means to change or renew.
Making it better is what innovation is all about.
Well it's more like a 2% return because it gets issued quarterly.
10% yields are fairly unusual, and are typically a sign that a company is hurting. They are often the result of a big dive in a company's stock and are likely to be reduced because the thing that caused the company stock to dive is that their profits are diving - and the dividends are paid out of profits. Sometimes you see 10% dividends in highly leveraged situations or from companies that have special tax treatment. Be careful with these as these dividends can be volatile or require some gyrations on your part at tax time.
If you are a dividend investor the key thing is the long term record of increasing dividends. Apple isn't a blip on the radar compared with some of the better companies in this regard.
Buying your own stock and issuing dividends is essentially admission that you don't have any idea of what to do with the money.
Companies that buy their own stock are notorious for having bad timing.
In this case the timing of the dividend is crummy too because it's pretty likely that by this time next year the tax rates on dividends will be a lot higher than they are now.