Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is patent ownership the real reason behind the Malaysian flight mystery?

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Freescale Semiconductor already owns the patent as they are the designated Assignee. The individuals may have come up with the invention, but if they were employees of Freescale Semiconductor at the time of the invention, then the company is the only one who can get money from licensing/selling/trading the patent. Or they could have invented it and sold it to The company, but the bottom line is that the assignee owns the patent and associated rights.




posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Maybe all those Freescale employees on that plane was a simple coincidence, but something seems very odd about this, to be sure.


“It is conceivable that the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 plane is ‘cloaked,’ hiding with high-tech electronic warfare weaponry that exists and is used,” a Before It’s News story claims. “In fact, this type of technology is precisely the expertise of Freescale, that has 20 employees on board the missing flight.”

Freescale’s commercial products can meet the requirements of applications such as avionics, electronic warfare, and battlefield communications, according to the company’s website.


www.theepochtimes.com...

I don't know what to think about any of this, except that something seemed incredibly off from the beginning. Everybody is coming up with theories, etc., but if you go to the company's website as is suggested, it does appear to be strictly an aerospace and defense contractor.


[align=center]Freescale RF has launched a major initiative dedicated to serving the RF power needs of the U.S. aerospace and defense (A&D) sector, and has established a team of specialists dedicated to supporting defense customers.

Freescale's commercial products can meet the requirements of applications such as:
Battlefield communications
Avionics
HF through L- and S-Band radar
Missile guidance
Electronic warfare
Identification, friend or foe (IFF)
[/align]
www.freescale.com...

So there may have been a few on board who knew how to shut off the transponder, etc. This is such a weird story, for sure. All I can think of is, if they cannot find wreckage, then this plane is...somewhere. I love a good mystery, but this one has so many angles.




posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I seen this floating around on Reddit, and I believe the conclusion was that this story was debunked. None of the patent holders were on the passenger list. Also, the tie to Rothchild was debunked as well.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thesmokingman
 


you mean I didn't need to spend 3 seconds disproving it?

that's time I'll never get back.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 

edit on 15-3-2014 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Anyone notice that the patent was filed on the Mayan end-of-world date, December 21, 2012?



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
What about the initial report that 5 passengers checked in to this flight but didn't board the plane?
Imagine the hassle of getting these 5 people's baggage taken off the plane.
Surely, if a passenger checks in baggage on a scheduled flight, gets a boarding pass, it shows their intention to fly.
If they don't make it to boarding, surely that is only realized at the last minute before take-off, after the PA system has called the passengers' names?
So, how did the airline manage to find these people's bags among 200++ other pieces of baggage that were already loaded on the aircraft, and get them off the plane? And there was no report of the flight having been delayed for this purpose.

If this didn't happen, where did this story come from...which was quickly recanted as being untrue?
This series of events sounds like the 5 people fully intended to travel on this flight, with their baggage, but were somehow warned off actually boarding the plane. Otherwise, why bother with loading the baggage at all?

There's got to be some truth to this story. Why would the airlines make this up?...And then recant it?
Why bother even mentioning that these 5 ticket holding passengers' luggage items were removed from the plane?



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


The 4 Chinese individuals were not the patent owners. They were the original applicants. As shown by the Patent, it had already been assigned to Freestyle. Freestyle was already the owner by assignment, so its position was not improved by the applicants death. Take a look at Title 35 of the US Code, Section 261.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


That is too blatant of a mistake to be legit.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   

PlanetXisHERE
Here is the patent. The date and awarding of it certainly match up with the theory.



It's pretty jellybean. This is the sort of thing you churn out by the truckload as an engineer. Certainly not a world-shattering sort of technological advance.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

FissionSurplus

Freescale’s commercial products can meet the requirements of applications such as avionics, electronic warfare, and battlefield communications, according to the company’s website.

Freescale's commercial products can meet the requirements of applications such as:
Battlefield communications
Avionics
HF through L- and S-Band radar
Missile guidance
Electronic warfare
Identification, friend or foe (IFF)


NIC can say the same thing about their jellybean passives. They CAN meet the requirements of avionics. But they're certainly not anything spectacular. Freescale makes commodity RF stuff. It's the sort of thing you use a lot of, but not because it's technically advanced.

Oh, and they most certainly are NOT strictly an aerospace vendor. They're not even close.




So there may have been a few on board who knew how to shut off the transponder, etc.


Why? These guys were chip fab types. I'm sure they could calculate a mean doping time or talk about interference masks all day.
Do you think there was some sort of Dilbert uprising and the engineers captured the plane? Why? To what end?
edit on 15-3-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   

F4guy
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


The 4 Chinese individuals were not the patent owners. They were the original applicants. As shown by the Patent, it had already been assigned to Freestyle. Freestyle was already the owner by assignment, so its position was not improved by the applicants death. Take a look at Title 35 of the US Code, Section 261.


That is true, it is clearly stated in the patent. Maybe the ownership details were changed after the disappearance - assuming these applicants are missing even though it says they weren't on the plane. This theory is easily put to bed by discovering the status of the "applicants" for this patent, if they are alive and well this theory is DOA, if they are missing the theory has some legs. I wonder if their present status can be checked on Facebook or LinkedIn or something like that.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 


underwater emp weapon test? (linked to 5.5 EQ reported by China)
bermuda triangle?
suicide?
political motive? (against/by their rival)

peace



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



PlanetXisHERE

F4guy
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


The 4 Chinese individuals were not the patent owners. They were the original applicants. As shown by the Patent, it had already been assigned to Freestyle. Freestyle was already the owner by assignment, so its position was not improved by the applicants death. Take a look at Title 35 of the US Code, Section 261.


That is true, it is clearly stated in the patent. Maybe the ownership details were changed after the disappearance - assuming these applicants are missing even though it says they weren't on the plane. This theory is easily put to bed by discovering the status of the "applicants" for this patent, if they are alive and well this theory is DOA, if they are missing the theory has some legs. I wonder if their present status can be checked on Facebook or LinkedIn or something like that.



As I said previously, and F4guy reiterated, Freescale owns the patent outright. There is no motive to kill the inventors in order to gain ownership. No need to disprove a Rothschild connection or verify the inventors' whereabouts/condition. There simply isn't motive.

These days it is very common for the inventors to not be owners of their patents. It is quite expensive to get something patented and most people in the semiconductor industry work for companies they do not own (who own the intellectual property their employees come up with).
edit on 3/15/2014 by xenthuin because: Typo
edit on 3/15/2014 by xenthuin because: Another typo



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


It's great when somebody actually reads a post and understands it. Conversely, the opposite is also true, when one makes assumptions because they didn't read the words correctly, and for whatever reason, decides to be cutesy about their response, based on those erroneous assumptions.

At least Dilbert never posted something on ATS to prove that he didn't comprehend the original post.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

xenthuin

These days it is very common for the inventors to not be owners of their patents. It is quite expensive to get something patented and most people in the semiconductor industry work for companies they do not own (who own the intellectual property their employees come up with).
edit on 3/15/2014 by xenthuin because: Typo
edit on 3/15/2014 by xenthuin because: Another typo


As one in the industry, I totally agree that virtually no one owns their own patent.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Interesting story for sure. But as for the comments about public trading etc... There's different levels of ownership that require different types of disclosure. You've got different classes of shares in many publicly traded entities. Common shares are transparent, for the most part. But preferred shares are a different matter altogether. A Rothschild would not be in possession of common shares in most cases.

Either way, it doesn't matter one bit. Their level of scumbaggery is the thing of legends. And goes deeper than even a preferred share - right down to the initial monetary control of all financial systems (that aren't on the axis of evil list anyway...) Their nature is innate, genetic scumbaggery and we don't need a "flight of fantasy" to clearly illustrate that case.

Meanwhile... On a ship docked on a Greek island there is diabolical laughing and the sound of private reserve merlot being popped. The reason for the celebration? They are still not tangibly blamed for a single thing.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

PlanetXisHERE
Here is the patent. The date and awarding of it certainly match up with the theory.






03/11/2014 BLACKSTONE PRESS RELEASE:
Chairman and CEO of the Blackstone Group: Stephen A. Schwarzman.
Schwarzman Scholars Names Former Harvard Kennedy School Administrator Julian Chang as Associate Dean of Student Life.

Did Julian Chang compel the 4 to be on that plane?
edit on 15-3-2014 by BeyondTheConspiracy because: no reason



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

AndyMayhew
Kidnapping/killing everyone on a plane seems a bit extreme over a fairly mudane patent?

Its not as though they have patented cold fusion or anti-gravity or powering cars using tap-water .... or even anything of military significance.



Do a bit of Digging and you will see NVIDIA and Freescale have Collaborated
Freescale announces support from Silicom and Green Hills Software for its C29x crypto coprocessor with board and RTOS solutions optimized for data center and cloud services security applications
Freescale-Enabled Wearables Reference Platform (WaRP) Supports Multiple Applications, Unleashes Design Innovation for New Products. According to Juniper Research, retail revenue from smart wearable devices will reach $19 billion by 2018.
Thats the least of it.
They seem to be getting bigger......

blogs.nvidia.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Crakeur
reply to post by thesmokingman
 


you mean I didn't need to spend 3 seconds disproving it?

that's time I'll never get back.

WIth time directly translated into money Stephen, I'll waste as little space as possible.
A star for each second, and it's early.

Back to the thread, or an attempt... as soon as I heard Judge Andrew N. tell me the Smith-Leahy (Senate bill 23 in 2011) was getting passed into law: and the letters patent for anything would be issued to "first filer" rather than "first inventor", my heart sank.

That in a nutshell told me whoever had the most horsepower/money to file first got the plum... and it seems to have not only set patent law back about 200 years, but killed off any individual incentive by the little guy to stick anything out there.

With a couple things of my own cooling on the stove now; I wonder how much the alleged "cloaking device" needed to be proven to the hidden moneybaggers before a real production run of countermeasure widgets was OK'd?

Given the Chinese weren't on the plane, but would a fable about their being aboard give the machinery a little needed traction as to its perceived value?






top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join