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

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

FissionSurplus
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.



I read it. I comprehended it. My reply was correct. Perhaps you can specifically point out the wrong part. Preferably without using BIN as a source.




posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   

dodol
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


You can't get much out of an EMP device fired under sea water. It's conductive.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   

BeyondTheConspiracy


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...


SOCs often have video IP integrated that they bought from someone, same with the RTOS. That's all this press announcement means. We've done much the same thing, though my preferences are for AMD and Wind River. Nvidia is a pita to work with.
edit on 16-3-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   

xenthuin
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


I work in the semiconductor industry and this is how it works at my company as well. If we apply for and receive a patent, the company pays us a bonus somewhere around $5000, but they retain all the rights to said patent...



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CommandoJoe
 


Some companies even try to add in terms in their contracts assigning them the rights to patents we file while under contract to them. No matter if it's related to the work or not.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Bedlam
reply to post by CommandoJoe
 


Some companies even try to add in terms in their contracts assigning them the rights to patents we file while under contract to them. No matter if it's related to the work or not.


If it's unrelated AND you can prove you didn't use company resources or time, you should be ok...



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by CommandoJoe
 


We generally just laugh at them and say 'no'. Actually had one company try to bury a clause in one saying we would never design again so as not to develop a product for a competitor.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

pointr97

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.


Really......the powers haven't gone to greater extremes for less?.......do you remember the terminator movies?....do you remember the one that the entire point was to destroy a chip? .....it isn't about the use of the tech, it may be about the tech possibilities....and a chip that small and powerful could revolutionize everything.


Not so long ago, the US army was experimenting with bullets with explosive timers. The idea was that you could calculate the distance to an enemy hiding behind a wall using laser range-finding, set up the timer in the bullet, fire, and the bullet would actually explode *above* the person, sending shrapnel everywhere.

en.wikipedia.org...

This system was deemed too expensive and clunky because it needed non-standard ammunition to contain the timing circuits, and the bullets had to be hand made.

Along comes this micro-controller, and now you could fit these circuits in a standard NATO ammunition rounds.
Add an off the shelf laser range finding system, and you have the perfect system. This patent covers the optimal positioning of chip dies on a circular wafer of silicon. That would help to reduce costs, especially when you need to mass-produce something in the millions like bullets.

Then the plane was carrying lithium batteries in the hold, plus extra cargo that took up seats (computers? manufacturing equipment?)

Looks like someone wanted to relocate an entire fabrication lab into Afghanistan. If you had a weapon that powerful, the last thing you would want is some third-party arms dealer selling these off to everyone.


Thi



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

stormcell
Along comes this micro-controller, and now you could fit these circuits in a standard NATO ammunition rounds.
Add an off the shelf laser range finding system, and you have the perfect system. This patent covers the optimal positioning of chip dies on a circular wafer of silicon. That would help to reduce costs, especially when you need to mass-produce something in the millions like bullets.



The patent covers the optimal positioning of multiple types of dies on a wafer. If they're all the same size, the solution is trivial.

Besides which, the patent's already assigned to Freescale. The entire "patent did it" argument is really poor.
edit on 17-3-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Crakeur
the article you linked says the chinese patent holders were not on the plane:
bold emphasis for your ease of reading

The names listed on the patent, i.e. Wang Peidong, Chen Zhijun, Cheng Zhihong and Ying Li are the same as in the online message.However, according to the March 8, 2014, passenger manifest(original) of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 these persons were not on that plane. If they were then their names are not listed.



Since the article just says blackstone, and doesn't indicate which group it is that owns this company, we can do a little searching on our own.

To make life easy, here's the blackstone group's advisory board:
ir.blackstone.com...
no rothschild there.

here's blackstone private equity's list of advisors, again, no rothschild.
www.blackstone.com...


Now, the bloomberg article that's referenced is referring to Blackstone Group, the publicly traded entity that is first in my advisory board links.

It's a publicly traded entity so anyone with some money can go buy units in the L.P. Is there a rothschild owner? Probably. Also some Smith's, McKinleys, Jacksons, Hongs, Sakamotos, Bickleys etc.


I'm not sure what the author of that bit of tripe is trying to do but, in a nutshell, his article says that 5 chinese men are listed on a patent and they ARE NOT on the missing flight and, therefore, they are probably alive and well, and ...BIG FREAKING LEAP HERE... this is a rothschild plot to take over the patent.





You won't kill that theory until the 4 Chinese patent holders are found. Everything up till that point is just more speculation.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

yourignoranceisbliss

You won't kill that theory until the 4 Chinese patent holders are found. Everything up till that point is just more speculation.


Are they missing?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I think their project had everything to do with the flight's disappearance. This is about ownership of technology.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
No!!...

I believe a creative scrapper and the pilots got together to strip the plane and resell it's parts on the grey or black market.

I believe they did the same thing with all of the passengers also.

Just kidding.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Snopes said :

FALSE


www.snopes.com...

Just sayin.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   

network dude
Snopes said :

FALSE


www.snopes.com...

Just sayin.



While I respect the idea of checking SNOPES..., frankly, they are not always unbiased in their declarations of fact (but that can be the case anywhere)...

While I can see much of the reasoning here is sound, I know that there are some issues this apparently fabricated production calls into questions; like why make up a lie about it in the first place?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Crakeur
the article you linked says the chinese patent holders were not on the plane:
bold emphasis for your ease of reading

The names listed on the patent, i.e. Wang Peidong, Chen Zhijun, Cheng Zhihong and Ying Li are the same as in the online message.However, according to the March 8, 2014, passenger manifest(original) of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 these persons were not on that plane. If they were then their names are not listed.



Since the article just says blackstone, and doesn't indicate which group it is that owns this company, we can do a little searching on our own.

To make life easy, here's the blackstone group's advisory board:
ir.blackstone.com...
no rothschild there.

here's blackstone private equity's list of advisors, again, no rothschild.
www.blackstone.com...


Now, the bloomberg article that's referenced is referring to Blackstone Group, the publicly traded entity that is first in my advisory board links.

It's a publicly traded entity so anyone with some money can go buy units in the L.P. Is there a rothschild owner? Probably. Also some Smith's, McKinleys, Jacksons, Hongs, Sakamotos, Bickleys etc.


I'm not sure what the author of that bit of tripe is trying to do but, in a nutshell, his article says that 5 chinese men are listed on a patent and they ARE NOT on the missing flight and, therefore, they are probably alive and well, and ...BIG FREAKING LEAP HERE... this is a rothschild plot to take over the patent.





Lord Jacob Rothschild is a Member of the International Advisory Board.

Lord Rothschild is Chairman of RIT Capital Partners, an investment trust company listed on the London Stock Exchange. He has been a founding partner and investor in a number of financial service companies including Global Asset Management, a money manager, and St. James’s Place Capital, a unit linked life assurance company.

www.blackstone.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Of course this needs more research but If I were a detective looking for motive I would be saying: BINGO!

What I would want to know is if this patent is really worth a lot?

Who knew that these guys were traveling together?

What are their international ties?



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Willtell
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Of course this needs more research but If I were a detective looking for motive I would be saying: BINGO!

What I would want to know is if this patent is really worth a lot?

Who knew that these guys were traveling together?

What are their international ties?


It's a project patent. You do those all the time. It's a method for arranging different sized die on a wafer optimally. It's not a new process or some new design. So, no, it's not one of those world-shattering patents. And it's very common to put engineers together on a plane, especially if they're going to a meeting or conference.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
So can prove that Rothschild is the final patent holder. If it is true then I cam only say you have found a motive.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


How so? They already own it.





top topics
 
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join