You don't know how right you are. Watt was convinced that high-pressure steam was impossible to use. That's why his steam engines always had to be massive and weren't even that powerful.
One useful example of Watt's disinclination to use high-pressure steam was when one of his own employees, William Murdoch, independently built a high-pressure steam engine. Watt did everything within his power to prohibit him from further improving on his designs. Some historians actually argue that Watt might have patented some of Murdoch's inventions in order to make it impossible for him to continue his research. Of course, that paper conveniently forgets this.
While high-pressure steam was more dangerous, it was also a lot more powerful and allowed engines to be made much smaller. Trevithick, Watt's main rival, was not primarily interested in competing with Watt's massive engines, which could only be used as pumps in mines and factories. He was interested in building steam-powered vehicles, and that is why he experimented with high-pressure steam. While he did not need Watt's condenser (and never did use it, even after Watt's patent expired), Trevithick was afraid of releasing his plans for a locomotive because of Watt's patent on "expansive steam", and released them right after that expired. Some say that patent may have been unenforceable, but we can only say that in hind-sight -- the threat to Trevithick was very real.
I personally don't buy the "Watt was an honourable businessman" portrayal in the paper. Watt was quite ferocious, and he asserted his patents on multiple occasions, while he sought ridiculous monopoly rents for licenses. In fact, he used his patents to block any semblance of competition (he destroyed the Hornblower family), and provably delayed uptake of his invention, as did Newcomen with his own patents almost 60 years before him: the installations of new steam engines as much as tripled the year their patents expired. Watt made most of his money from licensing and not from selling steam engines, but that changed when the patents expired -- his sons, who were handed his business then, went on to trade successfully without the need for patents.
To put things into perspective, while Watt started out as the lone inventor, he made LOTS of money, so by the late 1700s he was today's equivalent of a corporation.
Or maybe those individuals weren't demonised, and went down in history for exactly what they were and what they did. But that's just an unlikely theory.
VHS hardware and tapes were way cheaper, while there was barely any difference in picture quality (Beta was marketed as better picture quality). This led to higher uptake by consumers.
Also, early Betas only had a one-hour capacity, while VHS has two-hour capacity. I think this may have led the movie industry to give VHS its support.
Funnily enough, the Sony Betamax story may be repeating itself in the Sony PS3.
Historians, respected experts on the subject of England's first industrial revolution. I wouldn't fall so low as to refer to baseless speculation like you do.
I recounted the facts the way I'm aware of them, from reading a number of widely accepted history books on the subject. That was in response to the AC, who says he knows something I wasn't aware of.
I do not recall addressing you, or inviting you to snipe your shitty little comments at me.
Now stop acting like a child, and stop acting like a dick and STFU.
Actually that's not true (I can be a bit of a tech history nerd sometimes, so I know these things).
The proper manufacturing processes DID exist, however Watt's design was flawed in several ways, most notably the irregular shape and large size of his boiler, the need to cool down the steam by spraying cold water inside the boiler, and the fact that he *refused* to use high-pressure steam in his engines.
His contemporaries, most notably Richard Trevitchick, had solved those problems by taking the piston out of the boiler and making the boiler solid and perfectly cylindrical, and by using high-pressure steam (and therefore atmospheric pressure to release the steam instead of cooling it down by pumping water in). In fact, they had managed to compact Watt's stationary, room-sized engine to the size of a modern car engine.
These people were sued off the face of the earth, as they were forced to use a separate condenser, which was a necessary improvement over the Newcomen engine -- this is what Watt had the patents on. Trevithick, who was a very stubborn chap, was finally able to release his 30-year-old mobile high-pressure steam engine designs *right after* Watt's patents expired, and that's when steam power and locomotives really caught on. IIRC, the first train run four years after Watt's patents expired.
Unfortunately, due to the patent wars with Watt, Trevitchick died a poor man, while Watt was rolling in it.
I'm sorry, but it appears you are the one being provocative and more often than not plain rude. If you have no arguments, no evidence to support your position and nothing whatsoever to contribute, then stop posting these obnoxious personal insults -- you are just hurting the names of the people and organisations you flaunt in your signature.
If it's reasoned debate you want, you are at the right place, but you need to be capable of it first.
From what I observe, here you are calling 'stupid' all the people who disagree with you, and ignoring any attempts at communication. Are you really surprised that people think you love trolling the internet as much as you like trolling with patents?
BRILLIANT way to treat your critics. Call them names and pretend you are superior to them. That's the most pathetic attitude you can have, and it shows you know this is a fight you can't win.
Unethical? Pirates? Thieves? Please. Most people here are none of those things, they just disagree with your ideas.
Inventors need to be paid? Great. They should work at a university or at an R&D company and get paid to do their jobs like everybody else.
You are making a massive assertion there. The problem with the entire intellectual monopoly debate is that many arguments, such as that one, are made purely on faith, with not a shred of evidence to support them. Unfortunately, this results in sensible debate being drowned by noise, which is exactly what the supporters of the status quo want.
Right, as an obvious counter-example to your argument let's take the case of a certain Mr James Watt. He made an improvement on the Newcomen steam engine, and then used patents to block everyone else from further improving on his work. No-one else managed to invent around his patent, and his contemporaries who independently made the same improvement were unable to enjoy its benefits. He set progress back for the duration of the patent, and some say he delayed the industrial revolution by decades.
Perhaps you could claim that's an isolated case, but it's quite clear that patents are routinely used with exactly the same results today. That sort of thing happens on a daily basis in the world of programming, where developers are prevented from using well-known mathematical techniques to solve problems where those techniques obviously provide the best solution.
While patents may or may not be enabling a few hundred lone inventors to invent, we have to wonder if they are stifling progress on a larger scale and all across the board.
"Some have argued that patent laws help force "copycats" to do more tweaking to "innovate around" patents."
They force inventors to invent multiple solutions to the same problem, IF they exist. If they don't exist, then very few will have the money to license the patent and do research along that avenue.
To those here technically inclined, they force progress into breadth-first mode instead of best-first. That slows things down quite a bit.
I wonder if the stars are aligning for a patent system meltdown in the real future. There must be a breaking point for how many patent trolls the current economy can bear...
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
One useful example of Watt's disinclination to use high-pressure steam was when one of his own employees, William Murdoch, independently built a high-pressure steam engine. Watt did everything within his power to prohibit him from further improving on his designs. Some historians actually argue that Watt might have patented some of Murdoch's inventions in order to make it impossible for him to continue his research. Of course, that paper conveniently forgets this.
While high-pressure steam was more dangerous, it was also a lot more powerful and allowed engines to be made much smaller. Trevithick, Watt's main rival, was not primarily interested in competing with Watt's massive engines, which could only be used as pumps in mines and factories. He was interested in building steam-powered vehicles, and that is why he experimented with high-pressure steam. While he did not need Watt's condenser (and never did use it, even after Watt's patent expired), Trevithick was afraid of releasing his plans for a locomotive because of Watt's patent on "expansive steam", and released them right after that expired. Some say that patent may have been unenforceable, but we can only say that in hind-sight -- the threat to Trevithick was very real.
I personally don't buy the "Watt was an honourable businessman" portrayal in the paper. Watt was quite ferocious, and he asserted his patents on multiple occasions, while he sought ridiculous monopoly rents for licenses. In fact, he used his patents to block any semblance of competition (he destroyed the Hornblower family), and provably delayed uptake of his invention, as did Newcomen with his own patents almost 60 years before him: the installations of new steam engines as much as tripled the year their patents expired. Watt made most of his money from licensing and not from selling steam engines, but that changed when the patents expired -- his sons, who were handed his business then, went on to trade successfully without the need for patents.
To put things into perspective, while Watt started out as the lone inventor, he made LOTS of money, so by the late 1700s he was today's equivalent of a corporation.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Also, early Betas only had a one-hour capacity, while VHS has two-hour capacity. I think this may have led the movie industry to give VHS its support.
Funnily enough, the Sony Betamax story may be repeating itself in the Sony PS3.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
I recounted the facts the way I'm aware of them, from reading a number of widely accepted history books on the subject. That was in response to the AC, who says he knows something I wasn't aware of.
I do not recall addressing you, or inviting you to snipe your shitty little comments at me.
Now stop acting like a child, and stop acting like a dick and STFU.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
The proper manufacturing processes DID exist, however Watt's design was flawed in several ways, most notably the irregular shape and large size of his boiler, the need to cool down the steam by spraying cold water inside the boiler, and the fact that he *refused* to use high-pressure steam in his engines.
His contemporaries, most notably Richard Trevitchick, had solved those problems by taking the piston out of the boiler and making the boiler solid and perfectly cylindrical, and by using high-pressure steam (and therefore atmospheric pressure to release the steam instead of cooling it down by pumping water in). In fact, they had managed to compact Watt's stationary, room-sized engine to the size of a modern car engine.
These people were sued off the face of the earth, as they were forced to use a separate condenser, which was a necessary improvement over the Newcomen engine -- this is what Watt had the patents on. Trevithick, who was a very stubborn chap, was finally able to release his 30-year-old mobile high-pressure steam engine designs *right after* Watt's patents expired, and that's when steam power and locomotives really caught on. IIRC, the first train run four years after Watt's patents expired.
Unfortunately, due to the patent wars with Watt, Trevitchick died a poor man, while Watt was rolling in it.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
If it's reasoned debate you want, you are at the right place, but you need to be capable of it first.
From what I observe, here you are calling 'stupid' all the people who disagree with you, and ignoring any attempts at communication. Are you really surprised that people think you love trolling the internet as much as you like trolling with patents?
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Unethical? Pirates? Thieves? Please. Most people here are none of those things, they just disagree with your ideas.
Inventors need to be paid? Great. They should work at a university or at an R&D company and get paid to do their jobs like everybody else.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Leapfroging
Right, as an obvious counter-example to your argument let's take the case of a certain Mr James Watt. He made an improvement on the Newcomen steam engine, and then used patents to block everyone else from further improving on his work. No-one else managed to invent around his patent, and his contemporaries who independently made the same improvement were unable to enjoy its benefits. He set progress back for the duration of the patent, and some say he delayed the industrial revolution by decades.
Perhaps you could claim that's an isolated case, but it's quite clear that patents are routinely used with exactly the same results today. That sort of thing happens on a daily basis in the world of programming, where developers are prevented from using well-known mathematical techniques to solve problems where those techniques obviously provide the best solution.
While patents may or may not be enabling a few hundred lone inventors to invent, we have to wonder if they are stifling progress on a larger scale and all across the board.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
They force inventors to invent multiple solutions to the same problem, IF they exist. If they don't exist, then very few will have the money to license the patent and do research along that avenue.
To those here technically inclined, they force progress into breadth-first mode instead of best-first. That slows things down quite a bit.
On the post: Preparing New Techdirt CwF+RtB Offerings, And Extending The Crystal Ball For Those Who Bought
Re: Re:
On the post: Preparing New Techdirt CwF+RtB Offerings, And Extending The Crystal Ball For Those Who Bought
e.g., "if X people buy this option, we'll use Y% of the money to send Z copies of [some relevant book] to the White House"
Or something like that.
On the post: We've Already Surpassed Last Year's Patent Totals
On the post: Preparing New Techdirt CwF+RtB Offerings, And Extending The Crystal Ball For Those Who Bought
On the post: Preparing New Techdirt CwF+RtB Offerings, And Extending The Crystal Ball For Those Who Bought
Re: User based themes...
On the post: ASCAP Tells Artists It's Cutting Their Payments As It Brags To The Press How Much More Money It's Collecting
Re: Damn it
Next >>