It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

So site administrator Crakeur has heavily debunked this claim which according to you must be a distraction attempt.

I hope you're man enough to apologise for making ignorant claims about people looking for the truth...and thusly debunking theories like this.

edit on 30-3-2014 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 03:54 AM


reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

How many mysteries on this event.
This could be the right way...

We have upto today -

Air piracy
Time / Space slip
Chinese signal station
The Royal Family
Blame it on Iran
The pilot took off in it

Does anyone else have a theory...
edit on PM6Sat20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

Colonel Mustard in the Dining Room with a candlestick...

posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 04:12 AM
reply to post by AlphaHawk

Stop doing your high and mighty seek apology act, its so worn and boring to us all

posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 04:29 AM
reply to post by AthlonSavage

You make it sound like I do it all the time?

I just think if people go off on a tangent and end up being wrong, they should be accountable for it.

posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 04:47 AM
It's pretty obvious that the patents play a major part in all this.. and I personally don't need a man in a shirt and tie come on tv to tell me otherwise.

They're coming up with so many theories to blur the obvious staring everyone in their face.

posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 07:07 AM
reply to post by vivid1975

Again, why do you think that? Freescale already owns the patents. Not that they're anything worth killing someone over.

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:07 PM
Reading this patent it isn't that important and I don't think anyone would kill for it....maybe there is another more important patent?

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 11:56 PM

Reading this patent it isn't that important and I don't think anyone would kill for it....maybe there is another more important patent?

As a Freescale employee, they own the patents you file anyway. Why would they kill an employee for generating a patent for them?

posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 03:31 PM
why do people say there are no ties from blackstone to Rothschild?

it really looks as if the shills are running rampart on this thread.

posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 03:56 PM

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

they're not patent holders. they worked on the patents that are held by their employer, freescale semiconductor.

you see, your attempt to continually call them patent holders is not going to make them patent holders.
they aren't missing, nobody is trying to locate them because they weren't on the plane. they don't hold the patent in question

y'all can refer to them as patent holders and suggest they need to be found all you want. it won't make them patent holders and they won't suddenly be missing.

posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 03:58 PM

why do people say there are no ties from blackstone to Rothschild?

it really looks as if the shills are running rampart on this thread.

rothschild is an advisor. he doesn't own blackstone and blackstone has many investments, nobody's shown that rothschild owns this, or any investment, with blackstone. I would imagine he does but we don't know if he does or if his blackstone holdings include any of their funds that own freescale stock.

the only thing running rampant here are the folks attempting to make a hoax true by repeating it enough times.

posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 08:45 PM
my opinion? The patent was for utilizing the way that 'dyes' are added to a 'wafer'. now how many people immediately associate this to be food related? i know a few that do. well to put it simply, this wafer business is big news, it will be implemented soon enough, and its very very surprising that Google isn't at the fore front of this.

Think nano-tech guys, a flexible wafer with nano OLEDs applied through dye. think newspapers with moving displays, think magazines with video, think a book with scrolling text, all on paper/wafer and all flexible.

To help grasp this concept, Im sure many people have seen the glass that turns on and off? i cant remember exactly who invented it, but basically it is a small hand sized pane of glass that once touched, turns in to a screen and touched off it again looks like a ordinary pane of glass, this is nano tech. now there is various high tech companys/institutions around the world marketing/inventing flexible screens, off memory im sure sony and panasonic have some variant.

The idea that a screen can be flexible has been common now, but to a degree. I haven't seen anything completely flexible as of yet, but im betting that within the net 10 years our paper news papers will have small screens in them. Now that would make the patent holder/inventing company very very rich indeed.

Something to think about.

posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 09:16 PM

originally posted by: jester420
my opinion? The patent was for utilizing the way that 'dyes' are added to a 'wafer'...

Ever watch old SNL, where they had Emily Litella?

She'd have a big spiel on, say, "Violins on TV", and why she didn't understand why anyone would be opposed to them. Then at the end, one of the other characters would say "Violence, not violins" and Emily would say "Never mind".

This is one of those times.

The patent isn't about "dyes" as in "coloring", it's about dies, as in a unit of integrated circuitry.

On a wafer of monocrystalline silicon, you will have many complete integrated circuits, or transistors, or diodes. Sometimes hundreds. They don't do you a lot of good on the wafer. In order to break the completed wafer up into finished parts, you typically use a sort of saw to separate the parts from the wafer. This is called dicing the wafer.

The parts you get at the end are called dies, as a generic term.

You can, and often do, refer to the discrete parts on the wafer prior to dicing as a "die" as well. And that's what the patent is referring to.

Generally, you would often have every part on the wafer be the same die. But sometimes it would be nice to pack in some other parts that use the same process characteristics, so you could either yield what you needed for shipment, or use up the wasted area on a wafer if you've got parts with large dies - for example, a wafer of large die like those for a CPU will leave blank wafer area where you can't quite fit in another processor. A wafer costs a LOT. For a relatively small 150mm wafer, you might be talking $10K by the time it goes through all the steps. Blank spots are expensive. So, packing in a few MPUs or some logic here and there in the slack places sort of gets back the money you're tossing there.

The patent, which, by the way, is ALREADY ASSIGNED TO FREESCALE, is for a method of arranging dies on a wafer. Killing the inventors doesn't make any sense whatever, because the company already has the patent. There's nothing to take from the inventors, because they have no control or financial interest in the patent. And it's not an earth-shattering patent anyway.

And it has nothing to do with "dyes".

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in