wb9k
10 kW
Press release is attached.View attachment A123 acquires Leyden assets final.pdf
A123 acquires IP and scientists from Leyden Energy
- Thread starter wb9k
- Start date
oatnet
1 MW
wb9k said:
LTO, eh?
-JD
arkmundi
10 MW
liveforphysics
100 TW
Soon peoples delusions that information can be 'property' will be washed away. The parasites related to that harm (lawyers etc) will find productive alternative activities.
We are living at the tipping point of people embracing reality. The very phrase "IP" will phase out of use, and when it is used, it will carry the appropriate level of negative connotation the harmful delusional concept should illicit.
We are living at the tipping point of people embracing reality. The very phrase "IP" will phase out of use, and when it is used, it will carry the appropriate level of negative connotation the harmful delusional concept should illicit.
arkmundi
10 MW
Ain't that the truth brother! Does that extend to your body too? I mean I understand that 90% of the DNA by mole is microbial, all mostly benign and necessary for life. Is the human mind a wholly owned subsidiary of the microbe? So isn't all mind activity, including so called "intellectual property" the sole and exclusive right of the microbe? Who's looking out for their rights in the human mind judicial system?liveforphysics said:
wb9k
10 kW
liveforphysics said:
You don't think all music should be free too, do you? I used to play music for a living.
Do you think all IP is evil? How so?
arkmundi
10 MW
Some advocate for the Gift Economy. Burning Man is evidence of the incredible productivity of the approach.
liveforphysics
100 TW
wb9k said:
My pleasure to answer you my friend.
It's not evil on it's own, it's a non-real human construct delusion, so it can't be evil. The evil is the harms people cause defending the delusion.
Property can only be something of limited supply. Ideas and concepts are not capable of being property.
The very term is as much nonsensical BS as the delusion.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
-Thomas Jefferson
wb9k
10 kW
So I'll ask again, because "IP" is a pretty broad concept that includes not only technical inventions, but works of authorship and the like. Should authors not be paid for the books they write and have the exclusive right to do so? Or should anybody be able to print the exact same words out once the author is done writing, sell them for a profit, and tell the author to go pound sand because "those words don't belong to him"? You don't have to own a language to own the contents of a book--it's not the same thing. Is that legal concept (and it is a long-established one) a delusion?
I have to say the use of Jefferson's comments seems like a stretch, since we're talking about a whole lot more than just some guy saying something and then claiming ownership of the "idea". An actual working invention which may have taken years and loads of money to develop surely can have at least some ownership claimed by somebody. Or not?
Now when it comes to patenting the discovery of something in nature, like the human genome, I have a problem with that becoming the exclusive property of anyone. Techniques for using it is one thing, but the genome itself belongs to everyone. It also bothers me that the FCC auctions off the rights to use certain portions of the radio spectrum. They should be able to regulate the airwaves, but not sell them.
So while I agree that IP (or IP-like) concepts have been stretched to incredulous lengths at times, I can't agree that the concept of IP is blanketly "delusional", or results only in harm and evil. Authors and composers--and inventors, for that matter--have a right to a living, but your broad argument relegates all of them to the ranks of amateurs.
I have to say the use of Jefferson's comments seems like a stretch, since we're talking about a whole lot more than just some guy saying something and then claiming ownership of the "idea". An actual working invention which may have taken years and loads of money to develop surely can have at least some ownership claimed by somebody. Or not?
Now when it comes to patenting the discovery of something in nature, like the human genome, I have a problem with that becoming the exclusive property of anyone. Techniques for using it is one thing, but the genome itself belongs to everyone. It also bothers me that the FCC auctions off the rights to use certain portions of the radio spectrum. They should be able to regulate the airwaves, but not sell them.
So while I agree that IP (or IP-like) concepts have been stretched to incredulous lengths at times, I can't agree that the concept of IP is blanketly "delusional", or results only in harm and evil. Authors and composers--and inventors, for that matter--have a right to a living, but your broad argument relegates all of them to the ranks of amateurs.
wb9k
10 kW
oatnet said:wb9k said:
LTO, eh?
-JD
Yeah, and they're getting into NMC as well. I'm still waiting to see what A123 can bring to that party. The LFP is well-distinguished in the market....will the other chemistries be too? At this point, I have no idea.
They are only after the Dupont patent that Leyden fully acquired that allows long life at high temps
Leyden has aways been a front company strategically owned by the Chinese. By setting up in the US they were able to get the Dupont patent.
A123 also has tech to enable low temp operation. The specific chemistry is irrelevant. A123 can make NCA/NCM/LTO/
They are shooting for the holy grail: Long life at high temp and high charge and full power at low temp and no damage during charging at low temp, aka NO active cooling required. The Leaf battery clearly can't do it but I'm guessing A123 might pull it off now that we have a way to almost fully model cell life with super accurate/precision internal resistance measurements......Even if the cell energy density is lower, if the battery is capable of passive cooling, then in-total, the energy density of the battery pack will be higher
Imagine how much lighter and smaller a Tesla pack would be without all the copper tubes and coolant and pumps and heat exchangers and active flap actuators and on and on
Leyden has aways been a front company strategically owned by the Chinese. By setting up in the US they were able to get the Dupont patent.
A123 also has tech to enable low temp operation. The specific chemistry is irrelevant. A123 can make NCA/NCM/LTO/
They are shooting for the holy grail: Long life at high temp and high charge and full power at low temp and no damage during charging at low temp, aka NO active cooling required. The Leaf battery clearly can't do it but I'm guessing A123 might pull it off now that we have a way to almost fully model cell life with super accurate/precision internal resistance measurements......Even if the cell energy density is lower, if the battery is capable of passive cooling, then in-total, the energy density of the battery pack will be higher
Imagine how much lighter and smaller a Tesla pack would be without all the copper tubes and coolant and pumps and heat exchangers and active flap actuators and on and on
liveforphysics
100 TW
wb9k said:
Cory Doctrow can bestow your mind with an improved model of reality on this subject my friend. He is also an excellent story teller himself which makes watching enjoyable.
[youtube]NkBX-981_es[/youtube]
wb9k
10 kW
Luke, I was going to watch the video and respond at lenght, but rereading your post, I just don't have the time to do that right now. The bottom line here is that you simply do not understand copyright law. Before copyright existed, only aristocrats had any access at all to the majority of art created in their own time. This is especially true of music and visual arts. And the guy writing the checks (or providing room and board, as the case may have been) had direct influence on the art they were paying for. Haydn's copious amount of work for an obscure baroque instrument, the Baryton, is just one example. England's 19th century "copyright" law, such as it was, enabled professional writers like Charles Dickens to write works like "A Christmas Carol" to sell to periodicals between novels and keep food on the table. By your rules, he'd submit the story to the publisher who could go ahead and print it without paying Dickens a dime. It's great that you donate to the authors of books you've read (as long as you think they're worthy), but most people just download the next one and move on. If the whole world was anything like altruistic, this model might work, but people are, for the most part, not like that. Most young people I encounter today take the attitude that all music should be free because "people don't make music to make money" but that's naive bullshit.
Radiohead (who sold more records when with the labels, though making less money) is not a valid example of a self-published success story because they were made big by the labels. Thom Yorke has said as much in interviews. To paraphrase: "The only reason anybody cares about us is because we've already been through the mill of the mainstream record business." I have no idea how one rises to a livable income giving away music on the internet when starting out as a nobody, and apparently Thom Yorke doesn't either. The fact is, there doesn't appear to have been any yet.
"A Christmas Carol" is not an idea, it's a story with thousands of words strung together in an exact order through a long and arduous process. It is a work of authorship. Copyright--nor any law for that matter--does not stop me from telling somebody the gist of the story after I've read it. It only prevents me from distributing copies (and an electronic copy is still a copy) without compensating the author with a very nominal fee. There are exceptions for educational and "fair" use, where portions of a work can be reproduced without paying any fee as long as the copies are not being sold. There is no restriction on the dissemination of ideas or concepts in copyright law, only specific works of authorship. See the difference? Copyright is not about who owns an idea. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. You're strawmanning.
Nanophosphate is not a mere thought, it is a physical material that was developed by a team of paid scientists (like you, no?) who were paid by, among others, investors who expected to make money with the invention in the long run. That was part of the deal. IP laws insure they can realize that without fear that somebody can just steal the results of all that work and produce and sell the material without giving a cent to the team that did all the heavy (expensive) lifting to make that manufacture possible.
If you want to hear what an RF spectrum free-for-all sounds like, listen to the Citizen's Band at 27 MHz. Channel 19 pretty much says it all. Regulation of the airwaves is absolutely necessary. Useless chaos would be the result of none.
I think between this post and my others I've said enough. You're probably not persuaded, but so it goes. I gotta get back to work.
Cheers!
Radiohead (who sold more records when with the labels, though making less money) is not a valid example of a self-published success story because they were made big by the labels. Thom Yorke has said as much in interviews. To paraphrase: "The only reason anybody cares about us is because we've already been through the mill of the mainstream record business." I have no idea how one rises to a livable income giving away music on the internet when starting out as a nobody, and apparently Thom Yorke doesn't either. The fact is, there doesn't appear to have been any yet.
"A Christmas Carol" is not an idea, it's a story with thousands of words strung together in an exact order through a long and arduous process. It is a work of authorship. Copyright--nor any law for that matter--does not stop me from telling somebody the gist of the story after I've read it. It only prevents me from distributing copies (and an electronic copy is still a copy) without compensating the author with a very nominal fee. There are exceptions for educational and "fair" use, where portions of a work can be reproduced without paying any fee as long as the copies are not being sold. There is no restriction on the dissemination of ideas or concepts in copyright law, only specific works of authorship. See the difference? Copyright is not about who owns an idea. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. You're strawmanning.
Nanophosphate is not a mere thought, it is a physical material that was developed by a team of paid scientists (like you, no?) who were paid by, among others, investors who expected to make money with the invention in the long run. That was part of the deal. IP laws insure they can realize that without fear that somebody can just steal the results of all that work and produce and sell the material without giving a cent to the team that did all the heavy (expensive) lifting to make that manufacture possible.
If you want to hear what an RF spectrum free-for-all sounds like, listen to the Citizen's Band at 27 MHz. Channel 19 pretty much says it all. Regulation of the airwaves is absolutely necessary. Useless chaos would be the result of none.
I think between this post and my others I've said enough. You're probably not persuaded, but so it goes. I gotta get back to work.
Cheers!
wb9k
10 kW
flathill said:
Interesting observations. Thanks for chiming in.
I agree with Luke tho :wink:
even tho he is semi off topic
We are just so excited about the coming revolution, that is now in full effect thanks to Elon, that we are infecting every thread with talk of IP
I hope China steps up their game in any case
the more people working on energy storage the better
once we truly don't need the grid we don't need the government
shit with 40% efficient dirt cheap quantum dot solar cells combined with dirt cheap energy storage
I can grown my own food all year round
anywhere on or in spaceship Earth
independent living is my dream
alm0st everything I own will be designed by me (but not invented by me)
all I can do is discover universal design principles that have always existed
a flying RV
with the goal to have more time to create and share
anywhere I please
even tho he is semi off topic
We are just so excited about the coming revolution, that is now in full effect thanks to Elon, that we are infecting every thread with talk of IP
I hope China steps up their game in any case
the more people working on energy storage the better
once we truly don't need the grid we don't need the government
shit with 40% efficient dirt cheap quantum dot solar cells combined with dirt cheap energy storage
I can grown my own food all year round
anywhere on or in spaceship Earth
independent living is my dream
alm0st everything I own will be designed by me (but not invented by me)
all I can do is discover universal design principles that have always existed
a flying RV
with the goal to have more time to create and share
anywhere I please
oatnet
1 MW
Elon (my personal hero/role model for years) made the choice to give away his IP. Spreading the EV revolution is more important to him than making money at this point, so he benefits more from his IP by giving it away. This is different from him saying he never should have had IP at all.flathill said:
You may do this, most people will not, as they are in it for themselves at the expense of everyone else. I actively seek to NOT profit at the expense of others, but most people are gleeful when they get back too much change at the supermarket. The closer a human is to that survive/not survive line, the less s/he can afford to put civility first.LFP said:
Civilization is an affectation of the affluent. The human animal is really no different from other animal, looking to consume others to fuel our own survival. It's not fair, but nature is cruel. Human society is always one minor crisis away from a "Lord of the Flies" moment, I could quote a dozen examples from the past year where the social contract has lapsed and humanity is revealed for its true nature. The structures you wish torn down, like IP and lawyers, are part of the very substance of the social contract that enables civility.
While I agree that you propose a wonderful Utopian (Socialist?) ideal, it is not a possibility for human society, and smacks of a psychological state called "magical thinking". I agree that large corporate entities are flogging the IP system in an idiotic and damaging fashion, but I think the problem has far more to do with large corporations than it does with IP. I am far more worried about the ability for corporations to buy political candidates and preferential treatment with unlimited contributions, and enable a whole host of abuses of the individual, than I am about the specific abuse via IP.
-JD
liveforphysics
100 TW
You are all welcome to put as much faith in "IP" concepts as you choose.
No amount of faith makes your delusion choices real.
No amount of faith makes your delusion choices real.
wb9k
10 kW
oatnet said:
Well put. One does not have to be evil to live within the confines of society, but some folks will never be convinced of that. Most snap out of it once they have a family to feed. I used to sound a lot more like Luke than I do today, but I don't think I was ever quite that far out, not as an adult anyway. Still, my core values have changed very little. I'm just less extreme in my vision of what the solutions to the problems are while accepting that the whole world is probably never going to just up and do like I do one day. Seems unlikely.
Pacem everybody,
liveforphysics
100 TW
See if you can follow me, I can guide you to see through your group delusion and discover the reality of the matter.
The following is real.
1. We currently live in a world with no shortage of IP related policy and people who are willing to harm others who violate the policy.
2. We currently live in a world where anyone with awareness of file-sharing can have a copy of any data on there device in seconds.
Once you know these things are both simultaneously true, at that moment you have gained awareness that it is delusion and exclusively delusion to believe arrangements of droplets of ink on paper have some mystical power that in any way limits or restricts the capacity for people to share data. Data will only become easier to share, never harder.
Models that attempt to rely on the non-real to survive will soon die and rightfully so. Those who embrace models that function inside reality will thrive (like creative-commons licences with links to donate if the reader chooses).
The following is real.
1. We currently live in a world with no shortage of IP related policy and people who are willing to harm others who violate the policy.
2. We currently live in a world where anyone with awareness of file-sharing can have a copy of any data on there device in seconds.
Once you know these things are both simultaneously true, at that moment you have gained awareness that it is delusion and exclusively delusion to believe arrangements of droplets of ink on paper have some mystical power that in any way limits or restricts the capacity for people to share data. Data will only become easier to share, never harder.
Models that attempt to rely on the non-real to survive will soon die and rightfully so. Those who embrace models that function inside reality will thrive (like creative-commons licences with links to donate if the reader chooses).
wb9k
10 kW
liveforphysics said:
I never said that, you did, and it does NOT reflect the spirit nor the practice of copyright or patent law. Again, as long as you're not distributing copies of the work of others to the detriment of their livlihood, you are in no danger at all. Copyright DOES NOT prevent you from sharing all the ideas you want, whether they were thought up by you or not. You are ascribing powers to the law that simply do not exist, except in the minds of a few running corporations whose business models have been rendered obsolete and now seek to pervert IP law to maintain their status quo. THAT'S reality.
The internet has definitely made the dissemination of the work of others much easier than at any point in human history. I wonder if you're old enough to remember the world before the internet. Was IP evil then, when copies cost more money to produce and authors could not be reasonably expected to self-publish? Or is it your belief that the internet has changed the morality of commerce somehow so that authors suddenly do not deserve income except for whatever charity their readers might find it in their hearts to pony up? Do you get paid on such a basis? Would you accept such an arrangement for your life's work?
If you won't address my specific points and choose instead to ramble even more about delusions and magical laws which don't exist, please don't bother.
oatnet said:
Elon plainly stated patents are no longer good in many interviews. He wishes he never had to play the IP game, but he did with Tesla, only as defense. Telsa will continue to patent things, only because he still has to play the game. What Elon and many of us here are hoping, is we won't have to play this delusional game much longer. Note SpaceX has no IP and is doing just fine. He only has to play this game in the car industry because the car industry is corrupt and sue happy. They suffer from not invented here syndrome yet most of the advanced tech is purchased from suppliers (think sensors, ECU, GPS, screens). The US and euro car companies fired almost all their electrical engineers to save money as they figured all they really need to "own" is the combustion engine technology. Big mistake.
In other words, Elon is saying, in a better world, he never should have had IP at all.
liveforphysics
100 TW
flathill said:
We do live in a better world. The very concept information can be property exists exclusively in the minds of those willing to believe that delusion.
Information/ideas are real. Information/ideas as property is inherently impossible.
It makes no matter how badly people would like to believe it can be property, or how many words are written about it, information/ideas can not be property.
The belief some share that information/ideas are possible to be property is correctly labeled delusion.
wb9k- Perhaps you have better insight than myself, but as this ad oculos concept that information/ideas are inherently impossible to be property was well understood in ancient Greek times (likely understood long before, as it is obvious the moment you actually think about trying to limit/restrict/control rights to thoughts). The beautiful quote from Jefferson also seems unlikely to have been influenced by the current prevalence of the internet, which makes a brilliant real-time example of the preposterous delusional model one would need to choose to believe to think thoughts could ever be owned or restricted once they have been experienced by others.
Your own thoughts in your own mind draw from the pool of experience/input you have exposed your mind to. You can not read a book or watch a video or even read this post and not have your own mind's thinking impacted, it would be impossible. This doesn't mean reading or viewing something changes your mind, you will still believe in what you choose to believe in until the moment you choose to believe otherwise (this is always true of all conscious beings).
liveforphysics
100 TW
If you have any interest in self-education that can aid in shedding misconceptions, that excellent video by Cory Docrow linked above does a fantastic job.
If you wish to live with belief in the Easter Bunny, there is no video or argument explaining why there is no Easter bunny that can remove your belief if you simply still choose to believe. However, no amount of belief in something that is inherently impossible to be real will not make it real outside your own delusion or group that shares your delusion.
If you wish to live with belief in the Easter Bunny, there is no video or argument explaining why there is no Easter bunny that can remove your belief if you simply still choose to believe. However, no amount of belief in something that is inherently impossible to be real will not make it real outside your own delusion or group that shares your delusion.
Hillhater
100 TW
No ..thats not possible.liveforphysics said:
We live in this world.
A "better world" is a concept that once achieved becomes just "this world" again.
Its like saying .."this is tomorrow" .
BigOutrunner
1 W
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 52
liveforphysics said:
Luke,
There 2 essential aspects of patents (although abused by repressive rich and corrupt courts) is to first, not stifle inventive folk. Why waste your energy creating something new if there is no benefit in doing so (i.e. anyone can copy your work without consequences)?
Second your are sharing in great detail how to produce the technology you invented in your patent disclosure - you are sharing it to the world. Any patent is limited to a number of years, and every 4 years a poor inventor has to pay a huge amount to hold that patent. Many such inventors fail to pay these burdensome fees, so the technology goes into the public space. Rich corporations have no problems paying patent maintenance fees.
So, i would say Luke that your harsh comments should be directed at patent trolls and rich corporations and the corrupt court systems - who in bully individual inventors and small startup companies. All the do is buy up IP for the purpose of greed rather than pushing innovation forward.
I own two U.S. patents Luke and filed two more, something motor related.
Without the patent system, I would not attempt such a difficult undertaking as it would not be worth it.
Finally, I suggest to be skeptic of the Open Systems approach. Many such companies in diverse industries start as open and end up private i.e Oculus, TrueCrypt, etc. many people are being taken as fools in the crusade for openess.
Elon Musk's move is welcome however what he really means is, if you use our patents, we can use any of yours. Since he is a billionaire and ordinary inventive folk are not, who then is shortchanged in Musk's offer?
Food for thought I hope. Prejudice can run deep.
Thanks,
BigOutrunner
Similar threads
