"Think about what happened in the computer revolution," Gore said on NBC's Meet the Press program recently. "We saw cost reductions for silicon computer chips of 50% for every year and a half for the last 40 years," he said.
That's Moore's law to the inth degree. True, we didn't assert that Moore's law applies to PV, but He 's asking a nation to embrace an energy policy based on this comparison.
My recommendation still is the counter suit on the grounds that the new EA Scrabble is a closer copy of Scrabulous than Scrabulous is of any Board Game, and an important note, that Scarbulous has a very high likelyhood of collecting while Hasbro has a very low likelyhood of collecting. I would expect a quick settlement.
I'm not sure if your teacher included asymmetrical collection risk in your course. But it's missing in your argument.
I would insist that Patent law does exactly protect the public by LIMITING the duration of a monopoly on inventions. What the Patent provisions offer is an inducement to inventors to fully disclose the details of their invention IN EXCHANGE FOR (ie quid pro quo) a LIMITED exclusivity. Slashdotters often forget that Patent laws offer benefits to both the public and the inventor.
The purpose of a lock is not to provide free public access after a period of time. The purpose of a Patent is exactly that.
Prior to Patents, it was common for inventors to obscure the operation of their inventions. Stradivarius, the great violin maker of Cremona, for example was said to hold public demonstrations in which he finished his violins with a private label varnish - which he openly sold - after which he would strip the violin and recover it privately using a special technique which renders the violins he made as worth millions today. Secrecy was the watchword prior to patents. Patents are the precurser to open-source.
But I could certainly make a product called ImageShop, or Photo-Paint, or Paintshop, or maybe even Fotoshop. If the product were sufficiently different, the name can be much closer. Yours is a poorer example because photoshop is a puriet conjugal of two obvious words. Scrabble on the other hand would argue that every letter in their name is unique. They may have a point on that, but then they may not; as the word may have an logical if unfamiliar etymology.
I would argue that Scrabulous is an entirely different service than Scrabble, and that their similarities in rules must be completely discounted.
Once discounted - their simularities end abrubtly, one is cardboard, the other electronic, one requires players in the same room, the other stretches across the globe, and even astronauts can participate. Its a completely different product - like bicycles and airplanes really. The choice of name is more a "Homage" than plagiarism.
-You suggested they could copyright the look of the tiles (have you seen the tiles?) They are really plain, indeed the entire playing surface is uniquely free of any superfluous ornamental detail. The publics interest in the merely functional detail is protected by patent law. (Right patent law protects the public from monopolies on ideas)
-Trademarks are excluded from antitrust - only with respect to the actual logo - not the shape, form, and function.
The Irony here is that Hasbro stands to lose far more than it has to gain.
Going to court - means a precedent. If the Court says that games per se are patentable, but not copyrightable, it will generate a great deal more look-alike-games here in the states. I would suggest by and large, that game makers have not suffered from the exploitation of their expired patents as compared to say - drug manufactors - which face competition the very day their meds go off patent.
You're right on the Bureaucracy, still, one can cite a case from any court (even foreign courts) to bolster an argument.
On the second point; I think it's a colorable argument and I would dismiss your argument of "infringement".
This case turns on behaviors taken AFTER the take-down notices. Scrabble is now competing in the same market, and yet customers prefer Scrabulous over Scarabble. Presumably the market is aware of the differences, and making a choice. Since the Take-downs, has Scrabulous used any artwork which would looks like Scrabble's Logo? I doubt it. So there is no Malicious intent by Scrabulous to appropriate Copyright Images.
On the other hand Scrabble is clearly trying to exercise a monopoly interest in an existing customer base. In such cases, the victim has right too, and they ought to counter-file for protection.
I don't buy your Premise that Scrabulous has been infringing on any "Copyrights", simply because their product duplicates the form and function of a long expired patent.
AIK
If - as you say, they used Scrabble's trademark (ie logo) then yes, they should not have done that - but being out of the country, that could be dismissed as non
No, To be recognized as a car, a soda, or a bottle of stomach acid reliever does not mean you have infringed on the copyright of Ford, Pepsi, or Pepto-Bismol.
That it WORKS the same way is a patent question an long expired.
On the other hand, if you have a trench-coat lined with cheap watches which you are trying to pass off as $2K Rolex timepieces, you have infringed.
Did facebook players say ooh- that looks like a real cardboard scrabble board game by Hasbro - so I'll play it,
Or did they say - gee that looks like a Crossword-based puzzle game, like the one I played as a kid - so I know the rules...
I suggest that the appeal to customers is that they know how to UTILIZE the game because they recognize its form and function - far more than because they trust Hasbro for all their gaming needs.
Maybe Pepsi-Cola is what Coca-Cola calls their canned product?
The Name is similar by 50% of its letters. I should think I could fill a dictionary with products having >50% of their characters in common. I am rarely confused by them.
Look sometime at the medicine shelf, every second product is a bottle of the same shape, size and color - which say "Similar to Tylenol", "Similar to Viagra", "Similar to Pepto Bizmol".
Presenting a product which competes for utility with an existing product, and which bears a passing similarity is called capitalism, and it is a huge part of why we have the highest standard of living in the world.
Sure, There is serious doubt that intellectual property extends for ever and ever and ever and ever. Mark Twain tried to argue for infinite copyright - he lost, Hasbro will lose. This is an attempt to convert a "utility property" into a "copyright property" because copyright lasts longer.
But I would counter that the "Functionality" of the pattern is not protectable; however, the look of the pattern may be subject to copyright - if it is found that the two can be seperated.
I would submit that aside from the functions of different cells, and the use of colors to mark these function, there isn't much that would qualify as original work in the grid pattern. It's far more a useful design than an artistic design.
A duplication of the purposes of that grid is not copyright violation. Only to the extent that the game attempts to confuse the purchaser such that the purchaser is likely to confuse the two products does one infringe on copyright.
Again RC Cola - it's a can shaped thing, a brown liquid, and 75% of the letters are the same as Coca-Cola.
I would also submit that Facebook is the medium, not the internet, and Hasbro appears to be horning in on a proven winner rather than investing in new products with market risk.
The reason the Patent laws "expire" is because we recognize that the "inventor" is only entitled to a "limited" monopoly. You are advocating for a perpetual monopoly. Or you are advocating that the mechanics of a game are included in the artist's right to likelinesses of their own art.
I would submit that no one would confuse an internet experience across the world, with a board game in the same room.
I would also submit that Hasbro did not have the initiative to get off the ass and provide this product - Their monopoly period ended, and the free market found a demand and met it.
That is the "limited inventors monopoly" at work...
If the court concludes that the differences between a cardboard-n-wood game, and an electronic - internet power game having similar look and feel IS a diminuative difference - then this decision could be cited in every X-on-the-Internet patent as equally dissmissing the key feature of "Novelty".
In this country, the USPTO has granted endless claims for invention which are simply some traditional application - but rewired to work on the Internet. Mail (by Internet), Mail (by wireless ala Blackberry) Voice (over IP), shopping carts(on the internet), From buttons to telecommunications, shopping to sex, every aspect of our society has been "virtualized" and in every case won the argument that the virtualized version was novel and distinct from the real world counter-part.
Patents are only good for 15 years or so. so the workings of Scrabble are public domain (ie the addition and multiplication of points, placements etc... Only the name and logo are protect-able at this point. The broad net that would capture Scrabulous and scrabble would ensnare Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola, ABC and NBC.
If I were Scrabulous, I would counter sue for infringement on the new EA Scrabble version, on the grounds that the similarities between EA Scrabble and Scrabulous are greater than the similarities between Scrabble-the-Board-Game, and Scrabulous. In short, the addition of internet connectivity and facebook integration is a novel game which serves a customer base which is completely unavailble to a Boardgame due to distance - while the duplicate EA version serves exactly the same customer in exactly the same way.
Yes, I am arguing that that a theoretical free and moral market could exist in which pollution was mitigated by one of two options in which the government did not actively choose winners or take sides: 1. Double class action suit. 2. Nondeadly acts of self-preservation if suits were not permitted.
The RIAA is forced to go after the poorest individuals, A pollution suit would start with much much bigger fish.
There would be no clean-hands in such a case, only slightly soiled vs. pig-sty.
My proof is that in the US, the government is actively interfering in the free market by preventing injured parties from suing polluters - including CO2. And that if it did not intervene, and permitted a jury to decide the culpability of polluters, then we'd see what the market preferred to use for energy.
There is a case - you know in Alaska which may change this - we'll see.
A class action to sue themselves, is in a word, the definition of a government. That is how we, as a class, realize we need to set limits on our behavior.
I think the RIAA is acting unfairly; but as an example of "suing a large and diffuse class" It has provided an example.
This isn't a practical discussion, its a theory of government discussion. Conceptually, the free market, given the power to sue for damages, could set the price of oil such that wind power was cheaper.
You're arguing particulars which I think means you've conceded the premise.
Civil suits could works fine. For example, file a (double-action) class action pitting all Humans against all co2 polluters. figure the damages. Those Humans who burn less carbon than their personal share of damages are entitled to collect; the others have to pay.
Your insistence of finding a solitary defendant is a canard in my opinion (as an artifact of US justice, not a derivative of natural law, or a limitation of governments generally.)
Answer: you sue the co2 fund, increasing the damage figure, and affecting the payments for co2.
For the government to prevent that suit is to interfere.
It is certainly true that the government is capable of doing both: ie - it can subsidize the extraction of oil from a chaotic middle east by engaging in very expensive wars, or it could tax oil to cover the costs of medical care for anthropogenic disease.
In an anarchistic market; those who pollute could expect to have the means of pollution "disabled" by those who quite rightly object. That the government merely protects polluters by providing physical and legal security against a natural free-market reaction to deadly acts of pollution - is government intrusion into a free-market.
I reject your premise.
The government does not "need" to do the tying. The Market can do it just fine. (ie by suing for damages in a civil society, and by disabling the means in an uncivil society).
It is appropriate for governments to organize this - by charging a tax for pollution, rather than managing a suit and settlement for same; or by criminally charging polluters rather than individuals exercising the right of self-defense. AIK
Wrong - about Oil. If the market had to pay the full price in blood and treasure, medical bills for asthma, and the cost of relocating cities from rising oceans; then the market would not choose Oil. It is only when the government de-couples the price of oil from its cost that people choose Oil, Big cars, long commutes, and bog box stores (shopping commutes). In Europe, more of the real costs of Oil are integrated into the price, and people choose small shops close to home, luxury trains for their commutes, and get plenty of exercise. Been there done that.
If the government encouraged equally for energy-avoided (which a fair price would do), the winning option is conservation.
Yeah, the 62% is an invented number; The point is that unless Solar Panels are washed, the dirt will impact their performance. Utility-scale solar installations have a regular washing service. Residential Solar is sold as "Solid State" which is interpreted as "Set-it-and-forget-it.
My suspicion is that most tax dollars which are spent on Residential Solar are wasted tax dollars - unless the goal is to make rich voters happy - as these funds do little for the Environment, PV production will never by high enough for Middle America to bid on them, they will never provide Energy Independence, and there are technologies which can do both - so PV is bad policy. IMHO. AIK
The best Solar gets sun for half of a 24 day, so utilization is 50% at theoretical best. Coal and Nuclear are at ~95% for comparison.
Window-mounted Solar only gets light for half the Solar day, so base utilization is 25% (less clouds and repair). Effectively doubling the price.
Plus we aren't building new Large Buildings with window washing services at any great rate. Retrofit? not likely, give up a good view for an orange one? I'm skeptical.
From 00.01% of production to 00.012% (forgot to mention that since 62% of Solar owners forget to wash their cells this week, the production of solar went down for most owners?)
There is nothing "non-mechanical" about washing a solar device; regardless of its construction, it needs to be washed every week.
No-one would buy Neighborhood solar if not for technology-specific tax credits. If those same tax credits were generic "renewable energy tax credits" - the market would favor small wind - which is still cheaper by far than Solar per watt.
When the government picks winner - the market is the first loser, and I submit that the market is losing in part because of an artificial market for a dead-end solution (There's not enough time and resources for neighborhood solar to mitigate our Energy problems.)
More importantly, Silicon-based solar can contribute to solving the current issues (GHG and Energy Independence) to about the same extent that running cars of used food oil can contribute. There isn't enough Silicon production, nor enough food oil production to do more than scratch the surface.
This somewhat nerdy fascination with silicon as the Holy Grail de jur, may be distracting us from real solutions.
When government chooses winners; it can never go back to a free economy. Unfortunately, the government has been choosing winners in Energy for a long time. It is one of the areas in which we are a communistic country; and it shows, we have aging decrepit energy infrastructure - while our television/telephone/internet infrastructure is quite modern by comparison. The FCC has done a much better job of providing competition for wire services than the Energy Department has for its wire services.
(Also, the gov. must internalize externalities - but in asking the question, you've identified yourself as probably not understanding those two words. A little econ 101 might help, as it's an important point.)
Slashdot Mirror
37% is available. Oh did I mention they cost 100 times as much ;)
"Think about what happened in the computer revolution," Gore said on NBC's Meet the Press program recently. "We saw cost reductions for silicon computer chips of 50% for every year and a half for the last 40 years," he said.
That's Moore's law to the inth degree. True, we didn't assert that Moore's law applies to PV, but He 's asking a nation to embrace an energy policy based on this comparison.
My recommendation still is the counter suit on the grounds that the new EA Scrabble is a closer copy of Scrabulous than Scrabulous is of any Board Game, and an important note, that Scarbulous has a very high likelyhood of collecting while Hasbro has a very low likelyhood of collecting. I would expect a quick settlement.
I'm not sure if your teacher included asymmetrical collection risk in your course. But it's missing in your argument.
I would insist that Patent law does exactly protect the public by LIMITING the duration of a monopoly on inventions. What the Patent provisions offer is an inducement to inventors to fully disclose the details of their invention IN EXCHANGE FOR (ie quid pro quo) a LIMITED exclusivity. Slashdotters often forget that Patent laws offer benefits to both the public and the inventor.
The purpose of a lock is not to provide free public access after a period of time. The purpose of a Patent is exactly that.
Prior to Patents, it was common for inventors to obscure the operation of their inventions. Stradivarius, the great violin maker of Cremona, for example was said to hold public demonstrations in which he finished his violins with a private label varnish - which he openly sold - after which he would strip the violin and recover it privately using a special technique which renders the violins he made as worth millions today. Secrecy was the watchword prior to patents. Patents are the precurser to open-source.
AIK
But I could certainly make a product called ImageShop, or Photo-Paint, or Paintshop, or maybe even Fotoshop. If the product were sufficiently different, the name can be much closer. Yours is a poorer example because photoshop is a puriet conjugal of two obvious words. Scrabble on the other hand would argue that every letter in their name is unique. They may have a point on that, but then they may not; as the word may have an logical if unfamiliar etymology.
I would argue that Scrabulous is an entirely different service than Scrabble, and that their similarities in rules must be completely discounted.
Once discounted - their simularities end abrubtly, one is cardboard, the other electronic, one requires players in the same room, the other stretches across the globe, and even astronauts can participate. Its a completely different product - like bicycles and airplanes really. The choice of name is more a "Homage" than plagiarism.
-You suggested they could copyright the look of the tiles (have you seen the tiles?) They are really plain, indeed the entire playing surface is uniquely free of any superfluous ornamental detail. The publics interest in the merely functional detail is protected by patent law. (Right patent law protects the public from monopolies on ideas)
-Trademarks are excluded from antitrust - only with respect to the actual logo - not the shape, form, and function.
The Irony here is that Hasbro stands to lose far more than it has to gain.
Going to court - means a precedent. If the Court says that games per se are patentable, but not copyrightable, it will generate a great deal more look-alike-games here in the states. I would suggest by and large, that game makers have not suffered from the exploitation of their expired patents as compared to say - drug manufactors - which face competition the very day their meds go off patent.
AIK
You're right on the Bureaucracy, still, one can cite a case from any court (even foreign courts) to bolster an argument.
On the second point;
I think it's a colorable argument and I would dismiss your argument of "infringement".
This case turns on behaviors taken AFTER the take-down notices. Scrabble is now competing in the same market, and yet customers prefer Scrabulous over Scarabble. Presumably the market is aware of the differences, and making a choice.
Since the Take-downs, has Scrabulous used any artwork which would looks like Scrabble's Logo? I doubt it. So there is no Malicious intent by Scrabulous to appropriate Copyright Images.
On the other hand Scrabble is clearly trying to exercise a monopoly interest in an existing customer base. In such cases, the victim has right too, and they ought to counter-file for protection.
I don't buy your Premise that Scrabulous has been infringing on any "Copyrights", simply because their product duplicates the form and function of a long expired patent.
AIK
If - as you say, they used Scrabble's trademark (ie logo) then yes, they should not have done that - but being out of the country, that could be dismissed as non
No,
To be recognized as a car, a soda, or a bottle of stomach acid reliever does not mean you have infringed on the copyright of Ford, Pepsi, or Pepto-Bismol.
That it WORKS the same way is a patent question an long expired.
On the other hand, if you have a trench-coat lined with cheap watches which you are trying to pass off as $2K Rolex timepieces, you have infringed.
Did facebook players say ooh- that looks like a real cardboard scrabble board game by Hasbro - so I'll play it,
Or did they say - gee that looks like a Crossword-based puzzle game, like the one I played as a kid - so I know the rules...
I suggest that the appeal to customers is that they know how to UTILIZE the game because they recognize its form and function - far more than because they trust Hasbro for all their gaming needs.
AIK
Maybe Pepsi-Cola is what Coca-Cola calls their canned product?
The Name is similar by 50% of its letters. I should think I could fill a dictionary with products having >50% of their characters in common. I am rarely confused by them.
Look sometime at the medicine shelf, every second product is a bottle of the same shape, size and color - which say "Similar to Tylenol", "Similar to Viagra", "Similar to Pepto Bizmol".
Presenting a product which competes for utility with an existing product, and which bears a passing similarity is called capitalism, and it is a huge part of why we have the highest standard of living in the world.
AIK
I have a vehicle thing with 4 wheels and you sit on the left and turn this thing to make it go.
That would be easily confused with a model T.
If you all want monopolies - try Mexico Telephone service. The guy who owns it is the richest guy in the world. His customers are among the poorest.
AIK
Sure,
There is serious doubt that intellectual property extends for ever and ever and ever and ever. Mark Twain tried to argue for infinite copyright - he lost, Hasbro will lose. This is an attempt to convert a "utility property" into a "copyright property" because copyright lasts longer.
These get rejected regulorly.
AIK
Yours is certainly an arguable position...
But I would counter that the "Functionality" of the pattern is not protectable; however, the look of the pattern may be subject to copyright - if it is found that the two can be seperated.
I would submit that aside from the functions of different cells, and the use of colors to mark these function, there isn't much that would qualify as original work in the grid pattern. It's far more a useful design than an artistic design.
A duplication of the purposes of that grid is not copyright violation. Only to the extent that the game attempts to confuse the purchaser such that the purchaser is likely to confuse the two products does one infringe on copyright.
Again RC Cola - it's a can shaped thing, a brown liquid, and 75% of the letters are the same as Coca-Cola.
I would also submit that Facebook is the medium, not the internet, and Hasbro appears to be horning in on a proven winner rather than investing in new products with market risk.
AIK
And only the Iraqis should get money for chess?
It's a non sequitur...
The reason the Patent laws "expire" is because we recognize that the "inventor" is only entitled to a "limited" monopoly. You are advocating for a perpetual monopoly. Or you are advocating that the mechanics of a game are included in the artist's right to likelinesses of their own art.
I would submit that no one would confuse an internet experience across the world, with a board game in the same room.
I would also submit that Hasbro did not have the initiative to get off the ass and provide this product - Their monopoly period ended, and the free market found a demand and met it.
That is the "limited inventors monopoly" at work...
AIK
Here's an interesting argument.
If the court concludes that the differences between a cardboard-n-wood game, and an electronic - internet power game having similar look and feel IS a diminuative difference - then this decision could be cited in every X-on-the-Internet patent as equally dissmissing the key feature of "Novelty".
In this country, the USPTO has granted endless claims for invention which are simply some traditional application - but rewired to work on the Internet. Mail (by Internet), Mail (by wireless ala Blackberry) Voice (over IP), shopping carts(on the internet), From buttons to telecommunications, shopping to sex, every aspect of our society has been "virtualized" and in every case won the argument that the virtualized version was novel and distinct from the real world counter-part.
Patents are only good for 15 years or so. so the workings of Scrabble are public domain (ie the addition and multiplication of points, placements etc... Only the name and logo are protect-able at this point. The broad net that would capture Scrabulous and scrabble would ensnare Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola, ABC and NBC.
If I were Scrabulous, I would counter sue for infringement on the new EA Scrabble version, on the grounds that the similarities between EA Scrabble and Scrabulous are greater than the similarities between Scrabble-the-Board-Game, and Scrabulous. In short, the addition of internet connectivity and facebook integration is a novel game which serves a customer base which is completely unavailble to a Boardgame due to distance - while the duplicate EA version serves exactly the same customer in exactly the same way.
AIK
Touche'
Yes, I am arguing that that a theoretical free and moral market could exist in which pollution was mitigated by one of two options in which the government did not actively choose winners or take sides:
1. Double class action suit.
2. Nondeadly acts of self-preservation if suits were not permitted.
The RIAA is forced to go after the poorest individuals, A pollution suit would start with much much bigger fish.
There would be no clean-hands in such a case, only slightly soiled vs. pig-sty.
My proof is that in the US, the government is actively interfering in the free market by preventing injured parties from suing polluters - including CO2. And that if it did not intervene, and permitted a jury to decide the culpability of polluters, then we'd see what the market preferred to use for energy.
There is a case - you know in Alaska which may change this - we'll see.
A class action to sue themselves, is in a word, the definition of a government. That is how we, as a class, realize we need to set limits on our behavior.
I think the RIAA is acting unfairly; but as an example of "suing a large and diffuse class" It has provided an example.
This isn't a practical discussion, its a theory of government discussion. Conceptually, the free market, given the power to sue for damages, could set the price of oil such that wind power was cheaper.
You're arguing particulars which I think means you've conceded the premise.
AIK
Civil suits could works fine. For example, file a (double-action) class action pitting all Humans against all co2 polluters. figure the damages. Those Humans who burn less carbon than their personal share of damages are entitled to collect; the others have to pay.
Your insistence of finding a solitary defendant is a canard in my opinion (as an artifact of US justice, not a derivative of natural law, or a limitation of governments generally.)
Answer: you sue the co2 fund, increasing the damage figure, and affecting the payments for co2.
For the government to prevent that suit is to interfere.
It is certainly true that the government is capable of doing both: ie - it can subsidize the extraction of oil from a chaotic middle east by engaging in very expensive wars, or it could tax oil to cover the costs of medical care for anthropogenic disease.
In an anarchistic market; those who pollute could expect to have the means of pollution "disabled" by those who quite rightly object. That the government merely protects polluters by providing physical and legal security against a natural free-market reaction to deadly acts of pollution - is government intrusion into a free-market.
I reject your premise.
The government does not "need" to do the tying. The Market can do it just fine. (ie by suing for damages in a civil society, and by disabling the means in an uncivil society).
It is appropriate for governments to organize this - by charging a tax for pollution, rather than managing a suit and settlement for same; or by criminally charging polluters rather than individuals exercising the right of self-defense.
AIK
Wrong - about Oil.
If the market had to pay the full price in blood and treasure, medical bills for asthma, and the cost of relocating cities from rising oceans; then the market would not choose Oil. It is only when the government de-couples the price of oil from its cost that people choose Oil, Big cars, long commutes, and bog box stores (shopping commutes). In Europe, more of the real costs of Oil are integrated into the price, and people choose small shops close to home, luxury trains for their commutes, and get plenty of exercise. Been there done that.
If the government encouraged equally for energy-avoided (which a fair price would do), the winning option is conservation.
AIK
Yeah, the 62% is an invented number; The point is that unless Solar Panels are washed, the dirt will impact their performance. Utility-scale solar installations have a regular washing service. Residential Solar is sold as "Solid State" which is interpreted as "Set-it-and-forget-it.
My suspicion is that most tax dollars which are spent on Residential Solar are wasted tax dollars - unless the goal is to make rich voters happy - as these funds do little for the Environment, PV production will never by high enough for Middle America to bid on them, they will never provide Energy Independence, and there are technologies which can do both - so PV is bad policy. IMHO.
AIK
Best Case is 50% for east-west windows.
Southern facing windows (in the Northern Hemi.) experience significant cosine losses all day long.
The best Solar gets sun for half of a 24 day, so utilization is 50% at theoretical best. Coal and Nuclear are at ~95% for comparison.
Window-mounted Solar only gets light for half the Solar day, so base utilization is 25% (less clouds and repair). Effectively doubling the price.
Plus we aren't building new Large Buildings with window washing services at any great rate. Retrofit? not likely, give up a good view for an orange one? I'm skeptical.
AIK
From 00.01% of production to 00.012%
(forgot to mention that since 62% of Solar owners forget to wash their cells this week, the production of solar went down for most owners?)
There is nothing "non-mechanical" about washing a solar device; regardless of its construction, it needs to be washed every week.
No-one would buy Neighborhood solar if not for technology-specific tax credits. If those same tax credits were generic "renewable energy tax credits" - the market would favor small wind - which is still cheaper by far than Solar per watt.
When the government picks winner - the market is the first loser, and I submit that the market is losing in part because of an artificial market for a dead-end solution (There's not enough time and resources for neighborhood solar to mitigate our Energy problems.)
AIK
More importantly, Silicon-based solar can contribute to solving the current issues (GHG and Energy Independence) to about the same extent that running cars of used food oil can contribute. There isn't enough Silicon production, nor enough food oil production to do more than scratch the surface.
This somewhat nerdy fascination with silicon as the Holy Grail de jur, may be distracting us from real solutions.
AIK
When government chooses winners; it can never go back to a free economy. Unfortunately, the government has been choosing winners in Energy for a long time. It is one of the areas in which we are a communistic country; and it shows, we have aging decrepit energy infrastructure - while our television/telephone/internet infrastructure is quite modern by comparison. The FCC has done a much better job of providing competition for wire services than the Energy Department has for its wire services.
(Also, the gov. must internalize externalities - but in asking the question, you've identified yourself as probably not understanding those two words. A little econ 101 might help, as it's an important point.)