I am afraid that Intellectual Property and Patents are not one and the same. So the assumption on which this article is based is flawed. Intellectial Property is much more than only Patents. It extends to the design of the car, the logo, the trademark, so basically the total company.
Actually it also contains the undocumented "know how" and culture of the company. The problem is that if you separate the formal, legal intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks and registered designs) from this informal property then BOTH are worthless.
but seriously, who thinks they can beat Tesla at its own game???
If no one competes successfully with Tesla then Tesla cannot succeed. Electric car takeup depends critically on infrastructure and no one manufacturer is going to build enough cars to suppoprt the infrastructure.
That is why it was a really smart move for Tesla to free its patents.
Tesla needs successful competitors in order to succeed itself. There will be a big enough market for 10-20 electric car companies if the thing takes off.
It seems that people should stop freaking out that Faraday Future may have dumped its patents into some offshore company, and focus on the company's real problems -- like the fact that its execs are racing out the door as fast as possible.
Yes - it is a problem - because of the following scenario.
Some third party comes along wanting to "rescue" the business. They buy up what they think are the assets but then find they don't have the rights necessary to make the product. The company is now dead.
Of course any sensible purchaser would be aware of this - which means the company will likely not be rescued.
Of course the underlying problem is relying on IP in the first place - but if you are using that model then hiving the rights off IS a problem.
I do not in any way endorse James Mitchell's approach to interrogation or his opinions on healthcare, global warming etc - but on the other hand - given the approach taken by joirnalists - how do I know that my opinion of his opinions is actually grounded in truth?
Sorry it now goes beyond that.
The culture of journalism has become the main problem.
Here is James Mitchell on the approach journalists took to interviewing him - and bear in mind that they quite brazenly admitted these things.
I was told by someone who wanted to interview me ‘I am not looking for the truth, but am looking for a quote.’ Another journalist ran something by me she intended to publish. When I told her what she was saying was not even remotely true her response, ‘what I’m going to write about you speaks to a larger truth that may not come across if I stick to the facts of the situation.’”
I'd believe that maybe Putin interfered with the US election - just like Obama tried to interfere with the UK -EU referendum - with whatever means were available to him. (Btw I agreed with him on that one).
Face it - all's fair in love, war and politics. The US has an extremely long record of dirty tricks as does every major western government and most political parties.
Given the way in which the US has behaved towards Russia over the last 20 years it is not surprising that the Russians would like to see a less gratuitously unfriendly face in the White House.
At the beginning of that period the Russians were trying to befriend the west - only to find that they got treated as the enemy regardless. The US seemed to have ignored the end of communism.
Trump seemed to be prepared to treat Russia as "just another country" whereas Obama/Clinton just seemed to hate Russia. In those circumstances it is not surprising that Russia tried anything it could to influence the result.
The fact that the US won't release the evidence proves that either:
The did something equally bad to obtain it.
They don't actually have any - but they believe that Russia's current bad reputation (doping, Ukraine, Syria) means people will believe them anyway.
Calling it fake news masks that history and leads me to wonder why someone chose to differentiate the two.
Well "yellow journalism" doesn't mean anything unless you know that history (and given that the history is US based that pretty much exludes everyone else).
"Fake news" on the other hand pretty much "does what it says on the tin" (UK cultural reference).
Normally I'm against the idea of coming up with a new name for an old concept - but this time there may be a point - unless you think that the old term "propaganda" covers it.
As someone else mentioned, the rich getting richer thing is also part of it. A small band of billionaires and their tax avoiding companies keeping everyone else disenfranchised will drive the pendulum even more quickly away from what you consider progress. The cost of that progress is visibly too high.
I'm with you on the tax avoidance part, and think it's a shame that many tech companies play that game as well. Stupid of them, really. But the idea that the public is becoming more and more disenfranchised because of tax avoidance by big companies doesn't really pass the sniff test.
I think the "inevitablity of progress" thing has to be allowed a long timescale - if it is even true.
I grew up in the sixties, and at that time a big part of the "inevitability of progress" related to increasing equality of incomes and improvement in terms and conditions at work for ordinary people. Starting around 1980 (Thatcher-Reagan years) that went into reverse.
The combination of improving technology and globalisation has indeed been tough on the ordinary man in the west.
The public has become more and more disenfranchised by the same forces that have allowed tax avoidance. The one did not cause the other - they are both consequences of the shift in power caused by globalisation/technology. (To be fair that is also what the previous commenter really said - but you misread it). Just to make sure that there is no democratic check on this processes the main stream media are constantly bleating the line that there is no alternative and demonising anyone who suggests one. Even if the populist forces on the left manage to win and have smart people in charge (as in Greece) they are blocked at every turn. More commonly the media succeeds in misdirecting the public's discontent either deliberately (as in Brexit) or accidentally (as in Trump)
Now we have been here before. The late 18th and early 19th century were definitely a worse time to be poor than the late middle ages. This was also a consequence of technology and globalisation and we did get out of it that time but it took a hundred years.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough with the political shenanigans...T-bills
The odd thing is that wealthy people are also covetous of the rights and possessions of people who are actually poorer than them. Witness the attitude of major rightholders to small businesses that scrape a living by using what they percieve to "their" property, often in spite of the fact that their own living is not amaged in any measurable way.
This is an article of faith of the right.
Envy of those poorer than you is infinitely more dangerous than envy of richer people because, whereas a bit more sharing would defuse the latter, there is no fix for the former without grinding the poor into the dust.
One reason why this argument (though perfectly valid) won't fly very well is because Facebook (for example) HAS been on record for censoring factual speech that puts Islam in a bad light.
IN practice the tech companies do censor a lot of stuff when it suits them - and of course people on this forum say that this is fine because they are private companies and can do what they want - but apart from the obvious implications for free speech when a major platform does this - it will also encourage the technically illiterate to believe that it can be done in a universally watertight way.
Given that ad placement on videos requires Google’s specific approval of the video according to Google’s terms and conditions, any video which is associated with advertising has been approved by Google.
Because ads appear on the above video posted by ISIS, this means that Google specifically approved the video for monetization, Google earned revenue from each view of this video, and Google shared the revenue with ISIS. As a result, Google provides material support to ISIS.
might have some traction because it appears that Google have exercised direct editorial control in this case - at least according to what their t's and c's say.
The fact that in practice they don't review this material doesn't get them off the hook.
Of course it would be trivial for Google to change their terms to get off this particular hook - but I guess they have some other reason why they don't want to.