It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

CNN Shocker: MH370 Intact, All Alive, Plane Was Followed By Military Jets

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
This photo was doing the rounds weeks ago. Philip Wood's family confirmed it is fake at the time. Why have CNN resurrected it?




posted on May, 4 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Malaysian jungle. They've got a lot of it or some big palm plantation.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: gort51
Still very mysterious.
One senario I thought of is...

They are flying towards China over the ocean .... an area patrolled by many Navy vessels one would think.

It is 3.00am in the morning, there is an alarm in the cockpit, some electrical malfunction, the pilot rapidly (or is forced to or plane does it anyway) descends, at the same time the ID transmitting system fails.

In the ocean there is a class 1 destroyer. Routinely they track the skys with radar. All commercial aircraft have ID transponders, so are easily identified.
Suddenly, the Destroyer tracks an unidentified flying object blip. It just dropped altitude from 45000' to 5000' and is heading straight for them.
The radar puts a lock on, there is no transponder signal, so it is Not a commercial aircraft (they assume).
Radio transmissions are enacted for the craft to identify, red alert is enacted.
The Phalanx is deployed ready for action, SAMs are armed.
Communication may be sent to HQ or not, but the captain has to make a slip second decision, the UFO is headed toward them at 500mph, there is no transponder ID, visibility is zero..pitch black @ 3.00 am in the middle of the sea.
the UFO does not display lights, could be a hint of navigational lights but at 5 miles out and closing, It cant be determined.
Battle stations is enacted, craft is 60 seconds away, Phalanx is enabled on auto, SAMs are fired...direct hit!!
Lights up like a xmas tree, and the explosion light shows it to be a large aircraft.
Destroyer sweeps for survivors............

An embarrassing and "POSSIBLE" scenario...................
Considering other "Accidental" shooting down of commercial aircraft, how would a Govt handle this??
Particularly a Govt not highly thought of...USA? North Korea? China? Russia?

It's possible considering an encounter in the Mediterranean quite a while back. The Italian airliner was flying directly at the middle of the carrier group with no transponder on. They finally turned on the transponder after the radar lock on but no missile was fired. If that was still off a missile would have been fired.
There are ways of determining what the aircraft is now. Without the transponder working.
Chances are better for a hi-jack gone bad.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: howmuch4another
a reply to: nighthawk1954

It is the fantasized rantings of a girlfriend of a passenger. I would love to see the evidence of military escort she so confidently alludes to.
Nope just crazy rantings that CNN is only too happy to televise these days.


That's totally wrong, The 'escort' is not her 'fantasized ranting' that came from another relative of a missing passenger, and if you really listen to what she is saying you might understand is that she thinks only that it is a more plausible scenario than the scenario all the families, (and us) have been given thus far.
Listen to the video, where is she ranting? it's actually all very matter of fact, indeed she'd make a fecking good reporter. It's OK to not believe the information she was given, many will not believe it. It's not OK to paint totally wrong impressions of someone you presumably know nothing about, just to make the story even less believable.
There's more going on than we are being given, that much even the Malaysian officials have said, and what about the 'ordinary' group of passengers on board, travelling to a seminar in China..four of them are patent or joint patent holders worth billions. If those four have expired, those patents become the property of the Carlyle Group?
Yes, that's even more an incredible 'fantasy' than the military escort if you want to put the conspiracy tag on it, however, it's true.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

The patents almost certainly already belong to the Carlysle Group. Except for very very rare cases any time you file a patent it belongs to the company you work for. It's filed in your name, but it actually belongs to the company you work for, and they control it.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

The patents almost certainly already belong to the Carlysle Group. Except for very very rare cases any time you file a patent it belongs to the company you work for. It's filed in your name, but it actually belongs to the company you work for, and they control it.


Uh Uh, the four employees shared 80% of patent revenue, the Freescale electronics firm had the last 20% That was done and dusted, the [Carlyle] Group bought Freescale for 17.5 Billion. The patents have only just been filed after the plane disappeared. More on that from Anon.






posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

So Anonymous is now a reliable source?

Standard patent law through companies is that the company holds the patent, but since it has to be filed by an individual, it has to be filed under someone's name.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

So Anonymous is now a reliable source?

Standard patent law through companies is that the company holds the patent, but since it has to be filed by an individual, it has to be filed under someone's name.

Are you going for the LCD again? Who said Anon is a reliable source, who said they aren't. That information is already given in the other video, just that there is more detail with Anon. These people worked at Freescale classed as a startup company, there's nothing says those four did not already own that patent themselves, or that Freescale having a 20% share was use of facilities. BTW Anons video is over 8 minutes, you managed to watch it in 2...no I am kidding, you just didn't even have a peek.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Because I don't trust anything Anonymous says. Like everyone else, they have their own agenda and are going to twist information to say what they want it to.

Whether the patent was filed as a startup or not, it doesn't matter.

This might though. The four patent holders that supposedly died on the flight, were never on the flight to begin with.


One of the stories being promoted by the alternative media is that four patent holders of a new fabrication technologyand employees of Freescale Seminconductor were on board Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. This turns out not to be the case. Even though it is true that several employees from Freescale are listed in the manifest none of the aforementioned patent holders are listed.

Source

So if they weren't on the flight, how did anyone get hold of the patent, if they controlled it?


Moreover, the patent in question is dated 11 March 2014 and involves a "system for optimizing number of dies produced on a wafer." That doesn't sound like a highly valuable, "breakthrough" type of patent that would prompt the murder of four people (much less the death of 235 other innocent parties) in order to gain exclusive control of it. It looks to be a patent for a procedure that moderately improves the efficiency of a particular manufacturing process, not something with a huge market base and a vast potential for profit.

Additionally, the men listed are not actually the patent holders: they're the inventors/applicants, with the patent itself having been assigned to Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., of Austin, Texas. Presumably Freescale Semiconductor is their employer, and it's typical that engineers working in the employ of companies are required by the terms of their employment to assign ownership of their discoveries and inventions to their employers (and thus usually do not receive royalties from any resulting patents).

www.snopes.com...
edit on 5/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

Because I don't trust anything Anonymous says. Like everyone else, they have their own agenda and are going to twist information to say what they want it to.

Whether the patent was filed as a startup or not, it doesn't matter.

This might though. The four patent holders that supposedly died on the flight, were never on the flight to begin with.


www.snopes.com...


Anyone could have an agenda, that includes you or me. That is nothing to do with trust, if you don't trust Anon that your belief system, you trust Snopes, they too have agenda. In edit, how can you not trust something you haven't heard.

Nobody is certain about the passenger list, and Freescale are not releasing the names of their missing employees either for their given reason. One thing is certain the correct patent, (not another misidentified Freescale patent that the Daily Express carried for this same story) the story is concerned with has the four Chinese names on it, (In edit the full patent).





edit on 4-5-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

I didn't say that I trust snopes, just that the information on at least two sites shows different than the conspiracy theory.

Yes, and notice the Assignee?


US law, unlike foreign law, requires a patent application to be in the name of the inventor. A company cannot be the inventive entity.

The definition for inventorship can be simply explained: The threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived of the invention. Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention. An inventor has to contribute something to the conception of the invention, not merely be the supervisor of the inventor or someone that acted under the direction and supervision of the inventor.

The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.

The assignment of a patent is independent from the inventorship. A patent may be assigned to a series of different entities but the inventorship, once properly stated, does not change. The patent office allows for correction of inventorship if the error occurred without deceptive intent.

www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com...

Freescale already owns the patent without having to resort to killing the inventors.


edit on 5/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Nice work. As in 99% of cases, truth is duller than fiction.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I like gort1 theory that it was shot down accidentally. If you assume (and it is a big assumption) that we cannot just lose an aircraft in 2014, then you must assume that at least US and China are covering something up. An aircraft malfunction which then leads to a shooting down- this would cause a real political rumpus if it got out (in the 1980s, the shooting down by russia of the korean airlines made the russians believe it gave the US the pretext to go to war).



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy



Yes, and notice the Assignee?


US law, unlike foreign law, requires a patent application to be in the name of the inventor. A company cannot be the inventive entity.

The definition for inventorship can be simply explained: The threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived of the invention. Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention. An inventor has to contribute something to the conception of the invention, not merely be the supervisor of the inventor or someone that acted under the direction and supervision of the inventor.

The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.

The assignment of a patent is independent from the inventorship. A patent may be assigned to a series of different entities but the inventorship, once properly stated, does not change. The patent office allows for correction of inventorship if the error occurred without deceptive intent.

www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com...

Freescale already owns the patent without having to resort to killing the inventors.



You still can't say that, employees who have been hired to do research in general usually do not have to assign their inventions to their employers. Also, employees who have been hired for purposes other than to do research have no duty to assign their inventions to the employers. We don't know of any contractual arrangements there may have been, (or not) as to the role of assignee. It's also not uncommon for assignees to share royalties with the inventor/s, where there is inhouse research, but again all depending on the method of employment, or of any contractual agreements that may have been made regarding inventors royalties. Of course nobody gets a sausage until the patent is approved, in this case, right after the plane disappeared.

Anyway, the point I am making here, in this thread, is that what the lady is saying..and from information she received, (not thought up by her.. contrary to some other posts) what she says is just as plausible as anything else that has been mooted.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Zaphod58

Nice work. As in 99% of cases, truth is duller than fiction.


Ah, another one-liner. So I take it you know where the plane is, or where it is not?



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

The Assignee owns the patent. They have all rights to it. Even if they gave some of the royalties to the people that invented it, it's their patent under law. You can argue it all you want, but patent law states that the Assignee is the person that owns the patent. If they choose not to give any money to the inventors, they don't have to. The patent belongs to Freescale, or it wouldn't be assigned to them, twist it all you want to. If they wanted to, they could decide to keep all the profits for themselves, since the patent is assigned to them.

It also apparently isn't the huge deal that people claim it is. It's a method for putting more dies into an area. Nothing to do with cloaking, or stealth.

Even if an employee is hired to do research, they are hired to do research for that company so why WOULDN'T they have to sign the patent rights over? The only way would be if you had an agreement with the company to develop your own patent, on your own time, using their materials, and they have the first crack at buying whatever it is. Doing research for the company means that whatever you develop is for the company, therefore they own the rights to it.
edit on 5/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy



It also apparently isn't the huge deal that people claim it is. It's a method for putting more dies into an area. Nothing to do with cloaking, or stealth.



It says that in the patent I put up for your delectation.
Apart from that, who's arguing or twisting about the role of the assignee. What I stated is what you will find about patents. There can be binding contracts between an assignee and inventor, that have nothing to do with the wording on a patent, contracts are a separate legal issue, if an assignee agrees by contract to profit share, then he/she is legally bound to do so.
Funny enough, in this case we have joint inventors, who could individually, (if they wanted) license out the invention to whoever they wanted without even asking their co-inventor/s permission. All four have the intellectual rights.
The upshot is you or I don't know about any terms of contractual agreement between all the parties. The assignee is the owner, but the 'go with it' assumption that he gets all the shekels in every case is not correct.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Even if the Assignee shares profits, the inventor does not have the right to pass the invention out to other companies. The Assignee has all property rights to the invention, and they control it in every way. It's up to them what happens to the invention. The inventors sign all rights over to the Assignee, and no longer has any right to do anything with it, as it's not the intellectual property of the Assignee.


Assignment means a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent, patent application, registered mark or a mark for which an application to register has been filed.


If it was still owned by any of the inventors in any way, they would be listed as Assignee, along with Freescale.


II. ASSIGNMENT
“Assignment,” in general, is the act of transferring to another the ownership of one’s property, i.e., the interest and rights to the property. In 37 CFR 3.1, assignment of patent rights is defined as “a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent [or] patent application....” An assignment of a patent, or patent application, is the transfer to another of a party’s entire ownership interest or a percentage of that party’s ownership interest in the patent or application. In order for an assignment to take place, the transfer to another must include the entirety of the bundle of rights that is associated with the ownership interest, i.e., all of the bundle of rights that are inherent in the right, title and interest in the patent or patent application.


Both quotes taken from here.

Once the inventors signed over rights to Freescale, which is the sole Assignee, they lost all rights to do anything with the invention. It's now Freescale's, regardless of if they paid the inventors or not, and in most cases, the inventors are paid a one time fee for ownership of the patent.

Sorry, but that is patent law. The inventors no longer owned the patent. It was already signed over to Freescale, and owned wholly by them.
edit on 5/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

Even if the Assignee shares profits, the inventor does not have the right to pass the invention out to other companies. The Assignee has all property rights to the invention, and they control it in every way. It's up to them what happens to the invention. The inventors sign all rights over to the Assignee, and no longer has any right to do anything with it, as it's not the intellectual property of the Assignee.


Assignment means a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent, patent application, registered mark or a mark for which an application to register has been filed.


If it was still owned by any of the inventors in any way, they would be listed as Assignee, along with Freescale.


II. ASSIGNMENT
“Assignment,” in general, is the act of transferring to another the ownership of one’s property, i.e., the interest and rights to the property. In 37 CFR 3.1, assignment of patent rights is defined as “a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent [or] patent application....” An assignment of a patent, or patent application, is the transfer to another of a party’s entire ownership interest or a percentage of that party’s ownership interest in the patent or application. In order for an assignment to take place, the transfer to another must include the entirety of the bundle of rights that is associated with the ownership interest, i.e., all of the bundle of rights that are inherent in the right, title and interest in the patent or patent application.


Both quotes taken from here.

Once the inventors signed over rights to Freescale, which is the sole Assignee, they lost all rights to do anything with the invention. It's now Freescale's, regardless of if they paid the inventors or not, and in most cases, the inventors are paid a one time fee for ownership of the patent.

Sorry, but that is patent law. The inventors no longer owned the patent. It was already signed over to Freescale, and owned wholly by them.

The point I was making about the inventors was not meant to be the scenario here, it was an example of what a joint inventor can do, not in this case. But it doesn't matter what you say about ownership, if there is a contract between the assignee and the inventor, the assignee MUST pay the inventor a portion of royalties. Nobody gives a tit about the patent as long as they are paid. I'm a musician and the same T& C's apply to recordings and distribution and royalties. 99% of the time I go for royalties. Anyone who goes for a one off payment as you assert...is a mug, and yes I have done it in my youth. To add, however, CBS owes me money, they probably owe a lot of people money, the shower of pasties.
edit on 4-5-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

That's just it though, if you develop a patent for a company, they are NOT required to pay you anything if you develop a patent working on their time, using their information, and their materials. Any patent you develop while working for a company belongs to them free and clear. They may decide to pay you something, but they're not required to. They can even put a stipulation into your hiring contract that if you develop anything while on your own time, if you use anything belonging to them, the patent belongs to them.

Yes if they agree to pay you royalties, and sign a contract stating that, they have to pay. But there is nothing that says they have to pay you anything, since the patent will go to them anyway.




top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join