Edison Did Not Invent Light Bulb!

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

Relieved they could get the history straight:

"Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

[Robert Macy]

On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>
> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

interesting, I had heard he also invented the electric chair as an
attempt to discredit Tesla. And, the first three users were horribly
burned to death in an excruciating roasting effects.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Relieved they could get the history straight:
>
> > "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

That sounds like invention to me. Just saying you want to strap some
wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.

> interesting, I had heard he also invented the electric chair as an
> attempt to discredit Tesla. And, the first three users were horribly
> burned to death in an excruciating roasting effects.

Is an execution cruel and unusual if it includes bar-b-que sauce?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[rickman]

On 5/3/2013 5:27 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy<robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>

>>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta�s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

>
> That sounds like invention to me. Just saying you want to strap some
> wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.

So you would say that Bardeen and Brattain didn't invent the transistor
since they were both not the first to come up with the idea *and* their
initial invention was hardly practical?

--

Rick

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 3, 5:16 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/3/2013 5:27 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy<robert.a.m...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>

> >>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

>
> > That sounds like invention to me.  Just saying you want to strap some
> > wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.
>
> So you would say that Bardeen and Brattain didn't invent the transistor
> since they were both not the first to come up with the idea *and* their
> initial invention was hardly practical?

No, I wouldn't. Their thing worked.

What's more, they documented it (and its principles) well enough that
other people could duplicate, advance, and improve it. Davy's
whatever didn't do that--that took 78 additional years of intense,
diligent, novel experimentation and research.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 15:39:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Used to be "reduction to practice" was the key. NOW, I'm fighting a
patent scammer who patented a block diagram :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[rickman]

On 5/3/2013 7:07 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 15:39:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>> On May 3, 5:16 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/3/2013 5:27 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy<robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>>
>>>>>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>>>
>>>> That sounds like invention to me. Just saying you want to strap some
>>>> wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.
>>>
>>> So you would say that Bardeen and Brattain didn't invent the transistor
>>> since they were both not the first to come up with the idea *and* their
>>> initial invention was hardly practical?
>>
>> No, I wouldn't. Their thing worked.
>>
>> What's more, they documented it (and its principles) well enough that
>> other people could duplicate, advance, and improve it. Davy's
>> whatever didn't do that--that took 78 additional years of intense,
>> diligent, novel experimentation and research.
>
> Used to be "reduction to practice" was the key. NOW, I'm fighting a
> patent scammer who patented a block diagram :-(

Hmmm... any particular block diagram, or just the concept of block
diagrams? I've got one on my white board I think I'm going to erase. I
don't need any lawsuits!

--

Rick

[John Fields]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:07:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


>Used to be "reduction to practice" was the key. NOW, I'm fighting a
>patent scammer who patented a block diagram :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson

---
Nasty, isn't it?

A working device proving the principle isn't required any more, since
just a textual description of the device - right or not - and the
application fee will secure the patent.

How far we've fallen...

--
JF

[Jim Thompson]

Basically, without divulging the client, patent scammer patented a
block diagram, call it a "car", it can go forward and backward and has
brakes and can turn... but absolutely nothing about how to build the
car. My client _built_ the "car" and now is being sued for infringing
the scammer's patent. We go to trial in November.

[rickman]

On 5/3/2013 7:45 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 19:37:29 -0400, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2013 7:07 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>> Used to be "reduction to practice" was the key. NOW, I'm fighting a
>>> patent scammer who patented a block diagram :-(
>>
>> Hmmm... any particular block diagram, or just the concept of block
>> diagrams? I've got one on my white board I think I'm going to erase. I
>> don't need any lawsuits!
>
> Basically, without divulging the client, patent scammer patented a
> block diagram, call it a "car", it can go forward and backward and has
> brakes and can turn... but absolutely nothing about how to build the
> car. My client _built_ the "car" and now is being sued for infringing
> the scammer's patent. We go to trial in November.
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Correct me if I am wrong, but to get a patent you have to actually say
how to build the thing, no? Even if it is as little as saying, a car
with a motor and brakes, etc. How did the patent ever get granted with
no description of how to build it?

--

Rick

[Jim Thompson]

Government bureaucrats. But I'll have my fun... lawyers are not
nearly as fast on their feet as I am when it comes to technology >:-}

I once had a patent application (my first ever) challenged by a patent
examiner. I responded to his denial by saying he was just too stupid
to understand. The patent was granted...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Pat-3491301.pdf

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 4 May 2013 05:30:21 UTC+10, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>
>
>
> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

Humphrey Davy invented the carbon arc lamp, which isn't anything like a light bulb, since the carbon rods get chewed up rather rapidly. It was a useful light source, if you needed a very bright light and had enough money to pay somebody to look after it while it was burning and didn't need to keep it burning for longer than it took to chew through a carbon rod, which wasn't much longer than an hour or so.

The true inventor of the incandescent light bulb was Joseph Swan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan

Edison basically commercialised Swan's product in the USA, and gave Swan enough money to persuade him to ignore Edison's campaign of Larkinesque self-aggrandisement in the USA.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Robert Macy]

On May 3, 4:07 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 15:39:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com

> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

>
> I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

A group of predatory lawyers founded back east wanted me to review
patents offering tips and suggestions of applications and directions
the tehcnology would go. Sounded like an ideal job, BUT NOT! when you
consider their end goal was to use the patent process to understand
the inventor's intent and get to his next step BEFORE him! to
literally 'box' the inventor in and force him to make payments and
concessions. I RAN from that group. Kind of left me with a bitter
taste for patents and telling everybody what you're doing.

[Robert Baer]

Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 15:39:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>> On May 3, 5:16 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/3/2013 5:27 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy<robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>>
>>>>>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>>>
>>>> That sounds like invention to me. Just saying you want to strap some
>>>> wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.
>>>
>>> So you would say that Bardeen and Brattain didn't invent the transistor
>>> since they were both not the first to come up with the idea *and* their
>>> initial invention was hardly practical?
>>
>> No, I wouldn't. Their thing worked.
>>
>> What's more, they documented it (and its principles) well enough that
>> other people could duplicate, advance, and improve it. Davy's
>> whatever didn't do that--that took 78 additional years of intense,
>> diligent, novel experimentation and research.
>
> Used to be "reduction to practice" was the key. NOW, I'm fighting a
> patent scammer who patented a block diagram :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Q&D attack:
Check the wording of the independent claim(s) - prolly no more that 2
at most.
See if at least one of them conceivably covers toy blocks that kids
use..note "toy" or "toy block" or variants is not necessary for that link.
Now, given the link, that claim becomes dead.

Not so quick - find older (eg: previous) patents in similar fields
that describe the block concept in their claim(s).
The closer the field where this interference is found, the better the
argument against their claim(s).

[Jim Thompson]

We already have a well-thought-out defense. I'll discuss it next year
;-)

[Martin Brown]

On 03/05/2013 20:30, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>

> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta�s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>

ITYM Edison is widely credited in American rewritten history with
inventing the light bulb and exploiting US corrupt patent practices to
steal the market from Swann who actually invented, patented and
demonstrated working light bulbs in the UK with priority.

His light bulb "invention" was a straight ripoff copy of Swann's
original patented carbon filament electric bulb. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan

Edison was a far better self publicist and so the fact that Swann
invented it is now largely forgotten - particularly in America.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 03/05/2013 22:27, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>
>>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>
> That sounds like invention to me. Just saying you want to strap some
> wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.

It isn't true invention when you thieve the design from someone else who
hasn't bothered to get an American patent in time. Swann invented the
carbon filament electric light bulb and Edison copied it patented it for
himself in the USA and trumpeted "his" invention to the rooftops.

See:
http://www.commercial-lamps.co.uk/p/resources/lighting-history/sir-joseph-wilson-swan

and

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=11&title.raw=Thomas%20Edison%26%2339%3Bs%20Patent%20Application%20for%20the%20Light%20Bulb

And a more balanced view from University of Aberdeen complete with
photos of original demonstration and commercial bulbs.

http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/npmuseum/selected.php?id=40

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Mike Perkins]

On 04/05/2013 01:06, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 May 2013 05:30:21 UTC+10, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as
>> being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved
>> upon previous inventions to create the first commercially
>> efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb
>> is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro

>> Volta�s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first

>> electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy
>> created the first electric light. Throughout the next several
>> decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on
>> inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison
>> became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500
>> hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>
> Humphrey Davy invented the carbon arc lamp, which isn't anything like
> a light bulb, since the carbon rods get chewed up rather rapidly. It
> was a useful light source, if you needed a very bright light and had
> enough money to pay somebody to look after it while it was burning
> and didn't need to keep it burning for longer than it took to chew
> through a carbon rod, which wasn't much longer than an hour or so.
>
> The true inventor of the incandescent light bulb was Joseph Swan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
>
> Edison basically commercialised Swan's product in the USA, and gave
> Swan enough money to persuade him to ignore Edison's campaign of
> Larkinesque self-aggrandisement in the USA.
>

Swan and Edison came to an arrangement, as both had the potential to
destroy each other's patents.

The Humphry Davy I know doesn't have an "e" in his name?


--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

[Klaus Bahner]

On 03-05-2013 21:53, Robert Macy wrote:
> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>

>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta�s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

>
> interesting, I had heard he also invented the electric chair as an
> attempt to discredit Tesla. And, the first three users were horribly

Not to discredit Tesla, but Westinghouse. Look up "Current Wars".
This being said, he also treated Tesla badly. Which allegedly was one of
the reasons why Tesla chose to work for/with Westinghouse.

Klaus

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 4, 4:46 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 03/05/2013 22:27, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>
> >>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>
> > That sounds like invention to me.  Just saying you want to strap some
> > wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.
>
> It isn't true invention when you thieve the design from someone else who
> hasn't bothered to get an American patent in time. Swann invented the
> carbon filament electric light bulb and Edison copied it patented it for
> himself in the USA and trumpeted "his" invention to the rooftops.
>

> See:http://www.commercial-lamps.co.uk/p/resources/lighting-history/sir-jo...

Speaking of thieving, either that page was plagiarized from Wikipedia,
or vice versa.

> and
>
> http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=11&title.ra...

In typical for-dummies fashion, that only had the preferred figure,
with no text (specification). USPTO's not coughing up the original
images right now, and Google didn't have it either.

In most cases of these supposed patent outrages I've looked into there
were perfectly reasonable technical explanations not appreciated by
the huddled masses, such as the "outrage" patent patenting some very
reasonable, specific, limited, novel feature, composition, or process.

Without the particulars, I don't have a basis for thinking one way or
the other. Anyway, in revised history ISTM we should revile Swan for
all the carbon he caused to be emitted, and recognize him as the man
who destroyed Earth, nature, and civilization.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

You almost had me up until that final projection. Given that you're
the most avid self-promoter on the group (albeit not the most
successful), it makes me pause and wonder if you got the rest of it
equally backwards.

James Arthur

[Robert Macy]

On May 4, 5:55 am, Klaus Bahner <Klaus.Bah...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 03-05-2013 21:53, Robert Macy wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>

> >> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

>
> > interesting, I had heard he also invented the electric chair as an
> > attempt to discredit Tesla. And, the first three users were horribly
>
> Not to discredit Tesla, but Westinghouse. Look up "Current Wars".
> This being said, he also treated Tesla badly. Which allegedly was one of
> the reasons why Tesla chose to work for/with Westinghouse.
>
> Klaus

Didn't remember that tidbit. If Edison went after Westinghouse before
Tesla joined it, yes all aimed at Westinghouse. But, if Edison went
after Westinghouse after Tesla joined it, then two birds with one
stone.

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:36:21 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 03/05/2013 20:30, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>

>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

>>
>
>ITYM Edison is widely credited in American rewritten history with
>inventing the light bulb and exploiting US corrupt patent practices to
>steal the market from Swann who actually invented, patented and
>demonstrated working light bulbs in the UK with priority.
>
>His light bulb "invention" was a straight ripoff copy of Swann's
>original patented carbon filament electric bulb. See for example:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
>
>Edison was a far better self publicist and so the fact that Swann
>invented it is now largely forgotten - particularly in America.

It is my personal opinion that any alien village idiot who makes such
inflammatory statements against the United States should permanently
be denied entry.

[Jim Thompson]

Good stone. There was something in the last six months about that...
History Channel? Or PBS? I don't remember. Some series about
American tycoons?

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 4 May 2013 06:13:56 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Naaaah! Slowman, working with Moron Brown, invented the light bulb,
but Edison "...exploit(ed) the US corrupt patent practices to
steal the market from (the pair) who actually invented, patented and
demonstrated working light bulbs in the UK with priority" >:-}

[Father Haskell]

On May 3, 3:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>
> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."

To his credit, Edison, by his own admission, invented
5,000 ways *not* to make a light bulb.

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 4 May 2013 08:39:17 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 3, 5:16 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/3/2013 5:27 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy<robert.a.m...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
> >
> > >>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being
> > >>> the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon
> > >>> previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely > > >>> used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have
> > >>> begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta s invention of the > > >>> voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same
> > >>> year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. > > >>> Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 > > >>> inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb.
> > >>> In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for
> > >>> about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only
> > >>> minutes."
> >
> > > That sounds like invention to me.  Just saying you want to strap some
> > > wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.
> >
> > So you would say that Bardeen and Brattain didn't invent the transisto

> > since they were both not the first to come up with the idea *and* their
> > initial invention was hardly practical?
>
> No, I wouldn't. Their thing worked.
>
> What's more, they documented it (and its principles) well enough that
> other people could duplicate, advance, and improve it. Davy's
> whatever didn't do that--that took 78 additional years of intense,
> diligent, novel experimentation and research.

Davy's carbon arc lamp was well documented and worked, and was widely used within it's niche market - essentially theatre lighting IIRR.

Josehp Swan's carbon filament incandescent lamp was much later, and it took him several years of research and experimentation before he had a device that he could manufacture, patent (in the UK) and sell. Edison "invented" his improved version of Swan's original lamp after Swan, and the Edison and Swan Electric Light Company established in 1883 sold filament lamps that exploited Swan's 1881 invention of an extrudable nitro-cellulose fibre to form the filaments.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 4, 11:11 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:36:21 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

> >ITYM Edison is widely credited in American rewritten history with
> >inventing the light bulb and exploiting US corrupt patent practices to
> >steal the market from Swann who actually invented, patented and
> >demonstrated working light bulbs in the UK with priority.
>
> >His light bulb "invention" was a straight ripoff copy of Swann's
> >original patented carbon filament electric bulb. See for example:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
>
> >Edison was a far better self publicist and so the fact that Swann
> >invented it is now largely forgotten - particularly in America.
>
> It is my personal opinion that any alien village idiot who makes such
> inflammatory statements against the United States should permanently
> be denied entry.

Hey, let's not get politically correct[*] censorship here! Martin's
certainly right--whatever Swan did is long forgotten here.

[*] P.C. is when you can't say something that's true, lest someone be
offended. If it's true, it's true.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 4, 11:17 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2013 06:13:56 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com

> wrote:
> >On May 3, 8:06 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:


> >> Humphrey Davy invented the carbon arc lamp, which isn't anything like a light bulb, since the carbon rods get chewed up rather rapidly. It was a useful light source, if you needed a very bright light and had enough money to pay somebody to look after it while it was burning and didn't need to keep it burning for longer than it took to chew through a carbon rod, which wasn't much longer than an hour or so.
>
> >> The true inventor of the incandescent light bulb was Joseph Swan
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
>
> >> Edison basically commercialised Swan's product in the USA, and gave Swan enough money to persuade him to ignore Edison's campaign of Larkinesque self-aggrandisement in the USA.
>
> >You almost had me up until that final projection.  Given that you're
> >the most avid self-promoter on the group (albeit not the most
> >successful), it makes me pause and wonder if you got the rest of it
> >equally backwards.
>
>

> Naaaah!  Slowman, working with Moron Brown, invented the light bulb,
> but Edison "...exploit(ed) the US corrupt patent practices to
> steal the market from (the pair) who actually invented, patented and
> demonstrated working light bulbs in the UK with priority" >:-}

You mean Al Gore didn't invent it? (Or was he the hero that saved us
from it?)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 4 May 2013 23:06:06 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 4, 4:46 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On 03/05/2013 22:27, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
> >
> > >>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
> >
> > > That sounds like invention to me.  Just saying you want to strap some
> > > wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.
> >
> > It isn't true invention when you thieve the design from someone else who
> > hasn't bothered to get an American patent in time. Swann invented the
> > carbon filament electric light bulb and Edison copied it patented it for
> > himself in the USA and trumpeted "his" invention to the rooftops.
> >
> > See:http://www.commercial-lamps.co.uk/p/resources/lighting-history/sir-jo...
>
> Speaking of thieving, either that page was plagiarized from Wikipedia,
> or vice versa.

The Edison-Swan story has been well-known for a long time. Probably both are transcribed a much older source.

> > and
> >
> > http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=11&title.ra...
>
> In typical for-dummies fashion, that only had the preferred figure,
> with no text (specification). USPTO's not coughing up the original
> images right now, and Google didn't have it either.
>
> In most cases of these supposed patent outrages I've looked into there
> were perfectly reasonable technical explanations not appreciated by
> the huddled masses, such as the "outrage" patent patenting some very
> reasonable, specific, limited, novel feature, composition, or process.
>
> Without the particulars, I don't have a basis for thinking one way or
> the other. Anyway, in revised history ISTM we should revile Swan for
> all the carbon he caused to be emitted, and recognize him as the man
> who destroyed Earth, nature, and civilization.

The whole point of Swan's invention was that the carbon filament didn't burn, because it was sealed inside an evacuated light bulb.

In so far as the incandescent electric light converted energy into light a lot more efficiently than burning town gas in a gas mantle, it actually slowed down the rate of CO2 emission, rather than raising it, but James Arthur's opinion about "climate change" is plagarized from the Republican song sheet. He doesn't actually think about it as it passes through his brain, and sometimes - as here - this becomes rather obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 5 May 2013 11:23:26 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 4, 11:17 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My

More of James Arthur's mindless regurgitation of the Republican song-sheet. Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He did - correctly - claim to have played a significant part in the US legislation that made it widely accessible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 4 May 2013 18:20:22 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

"exploiting US corrupt patent practices"? Back when the patent office
had qualified examiners.

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 4 May 2013 18:23:26 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Al invented everything, and Saint Obama is "giving it" to all the
people ;-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> Government bureaucrats. But I'll have my fun... lawyers are not
> nearly as fast on their feet as I am when it comes to technology >:-}
>
> I once had a patent application (my first ever) challenged by a patent
> examiner. I responded to his denial by saying he was just too stupid
> to understand. The patent was granted...
>
> http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Pat-3491301.pdf

I thought that your first patent was for fire? ;-)

[Bill Sloman]

Earth, air, fire and water ... in the beginning was the word, but even Jim wasn't around to patent that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

On 04/05/2013 16:17, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2013 06:13:56 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>> On May 3, 8:06 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 4 May 2013 05:30:21 UTC+10, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>>
>>>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>>>
>>> Humphrey Davy invented the carbon arc lamp, which isn't anything like a light bulb, since the carbon rods get chewed up rather rapidly. It was a useful light source, if you needed a very bright light and had enough money to pay somebody to look after it while it was burning and didn't need to keep it burning for longer than it took to chew through a carbon rod, which wasn't much longer than an hour or so.
>>>
>>> The true inventor of the incandescent light bulb was Joseph Swan
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
>>>
>>> Edison basically commercialised Swan's product in the USA, and gave Swan enough money to persuade him to ignore Edison's campaign of Larkinesque self-aggrandisement in the USA.
>>
>> You almost had me up until that final projection. Given that you're
>> the most avid self-promoter on the group (albeit not the most
>> successful), it makes me pause and wonder if you got the rest of it
>> equally backwards.
>>
>> James Arthur
>
> Naaaah! Slowman, working with Moron Brown, invented the light bulb,
> but Edison "...exploit(ed) the US corrupt patent practices to
> steal the market from (the pair) who actually invented, patented and
> demonstrated working light bulbs in the UK with priority" >:-}
>
> ...Jim Thompson

You are an ignorant rightard fuckwit that denies facts. You don't even
have the excuse of being terminally stupid like the usual dittoheads.

The facts about Swann inventing the first carbon filament lamp are
clearly available for anyone but a deranged Merkin "Patriot" to see.

It is quite funny when Thompson loses it to such an extent that his
rationality goes completely out of the window. Interesting also to see
what his views on free speech are when he doesn't like the message.

Swann invented the carbon filament light bulb and Edison made a clone of
the same basic product with a slightly better vacuum. Edison was
undoubtedly a better businessman and self publicist as history shows.

It is apparently a little bit more complex in that Swann did actually
successfully sue Edison for patent infringement in the USA and *win*
according to the most detailed source I could find and was able to
become a partner in Edison's company and they merged too in the UK.

This is all airbrushed out of USian historical memory on an NIH basis.

Later for tactical reasons in another later critical US patent battle
Swann deliberately overplayed Edison's claims to the inventive step.
Essentially a flag wrapping trick to exploit US patriotism.

A reasonable online Swann and Edison story is at:

http://www.design-technology.info/inventors/page27.htm
(page layout is dreadful)

Or slightly better and more complete history of the incandescent lamp :

http://www.ezy-reach.com/history_facts_types_lightbulbs.html

I hadn't realised Lodygin was also granted an early Russian patent on
incandescent lamps (before either of Swann or Edison) - he is better
known for figuring out the high melting point tungsten filament bulb.
But he was ahead of his time and it was too expensive back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nikolayevich_Lodygin


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 04/05/2013 16:11, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:36:21 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/05/2013 20:30, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>>
>>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta’s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>>>
>>
>> ITYM Edison is widely credited in American rewritten history with
>> inventing the light bulb and exploiting US corrupt patent practices to
>> steal the market from Swann who actually invented, patented and
>> demonstrated working light bulbs in the UK with priority.
>>
>> His light bulb "invention" was a straight ripoff copy of Swann's
>> original patented carbon filament electric bulb. See for example:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
>>
>> Edison was a far better self publicist and so the fact that Swann
>> invented it is now largely forgotten - particularly in America.
>
> It is my personal opinion that any alien village idiot who makes such
> inflammatory statements against the United States should permanently
> be denied entry.
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Your conditional "support" for the right to free speech and wish to
censor any factual material that conflicts with your rightard fuckwit
prejudices is duly noted.

*YOU* are the village ignoramus here and wilfully ignorant at that.

Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle against
Edison and forced him to merge their companies against his wishes.
It would have wrecked both companies to continue their legal battle.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <36tht.17501$aX5....@newsfe27.iad>, Martin Brown

Not exactly. I was at the Edison summer estate (now museum) in Florida
in April 2013, and the displays there were quite clear that Swann had a
valid claim, and so Edison proposed a merger with Swann, which Swann
accepted. There were a number of legal letters and notes to this
effect on display.

That said, the media are not good at getting such things straight, then
and now.

Joe Gwinn

<http://www.edisonfordwinterestates.org/>

[Jim Thompson]

No. Just the brimstone ;-)

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown

<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 04/05/2013 16:11, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:36:21 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>

[snip]

>>
>> It is my personal opinion that any alien village idiot who makes such
>> inflammatory statements against the United States should permanently
>> be denied entry.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Your conditional "support" for the right to free speech and wish to
>censor any factual material that conflicts with your rightard fuckwit
>prejudices is duly noted.

Please explain for us all why you think, as a non-American, why you
should be afforded the rights of a U.S. citizen?

My personal opinion is that aliens on visa, or even naturalized
citizens, who commit crimes against the U.S., should be summarily
slaughtered in the public square

And anyone making smug little asshole remarks against the U.S. should
be denied _any_ form of visa. And student visas should be reviewed
annually. Any foreign student, not a "student in good standing",
should be bounced on his head a couple of times and sent permanently
back "home".

>
>*YOU* are the village ignoramus here and wilfully ignorant at that.

Nope. You take the Obama/Holder misapplications as the law of the
land... it isn't.

>
>Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle against
>Edison and forced him to merge their companies against his wishes.
>It would have wrecked both companies to continue their legal battle.

Excuses, excuses. Don't bother with FACTS.

[Mike Perkins]

History is much about credit going to those that exploit inventions
rather than the true inventors.

Anyone might think the same that it was really Gustave Whitehead who had
the first successful powered flight, whatever next?

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/wright-brothers-not-first-fly

[Mike Perkins]

On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
>>

>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle against
>> Edison and forced him to merge their companies against his wishes.
>> It would have wrecked both companies to continue their legal battle.
>
> Excuses, excuses. Don't bother with FACTS.
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?

[Greegor]

> >Didn't remember that tidbit. If Edison went after Westinghouse before
> >Tesla joined it, yes all aimed at Westinghouse. But, if Edison went
> >after Westinghouse after Tesla joined it, then two birds with one
> >stone.

JT > Good stone.  There was something in the last
JT > six months about that...
JT > History Channel?  Or PBS?  I don't remember.
JT >  Some series about American tycoons?

"Men Who Built America" on History Channel

[Greegor]

BS > Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. <snip>

"I took the initiative in creating the internet" - Al Gore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpxtKcLSFWw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rnv_d_iEu0

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 22:57:50 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com>
wrote:

>On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
>>>
>>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle against
>>> Edison and forced him to merge their companies against his wishes.
>>> It would have wrecked both companies to continue their legal battle.
>>
>> Excuses, excuses. Don't bother with FACTS.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?

Swann made a business arrangement with Edison. Did he not?

What is this "universally accepted course of history"?

I think it's called survival of the fittest, not survival of the
socialist worm.

And the UK is a has-been country >:-}

[Gib Bogle]

On 5/05/2013 3:11 a.m., Jim Thompson wrote:

> It is my personal opinion that any alien village idiot who makes such
> inflammatory statements against the United States should permanently
> be denied entry.

But your personal opinion is worth the paper it's written on.

[Gib Bogle]

On 6/05/2013 9:57 a.m., Mike Perkins wrote:
> On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
>>>
>>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle against
>>> Edison and forced him to merge their companies against his wishes.
>>> It would have wrecked both companies to continue their legal battle.
>>
>> Excuses, excuses. Don't bother with FACTS.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?
>

He is in denial of many facts. It's almost a kind of mental illness.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 5, 9:26 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 04/05/2013 16:17, Jim Thompson wrote:

> You are an ignorant rightard fuckwit that denies facts. You don't even
> have the excuse of being terminally stupid like the usual dittoheads.
>
> The facts about Swann inventing the first carbon filament lamp are
> clearly available for anyone but a deranged Merkin "Patriot" to see.

It's not a matter of derangement, more that we're so prosperous that
the masses are fixed on more important things than inventions or
survival. You know, like Kim Kardshian.

> It is quite funny when Thompson loses it to such an extent that his
> rationality goes completely out of the window. Interesting also to see
> what his views on free speech are when he doesn't like the message.
>
> Swann invented the carbon filament light bulb and Edison made a clone of
> the same basic product with a slightly better vacuum. Edison was
> undoubtedly a better businessman and self publicist as history shows.
>
> It is apparently a little bit more complex in that Swann did actually
> successfully sue Edison for patent infringement in the USA and *win*
> according to the most detailed source I could find and was able to
> become a partner in Edison's company and they merged too in the UK.
>
> This is all airbrushed out of USian historical memory on an NIH basis.

It's not a conspiracy, we're a big country with lots to keep track
of. (Presently movie stars, reality shows and such.) Trust me on
this.

> Later for tactical reasons in another later critical US patent battle
> Swann deliberately overplayed Edison's claims to the inventive step.
> Essentially a flag wrapping trick to exploit US patriotism.
>
> A reasonable online Swann and Edison story is at:
>
> http://www.design-technology.info/inventors/page27.htm
> (page layout is dreadful)
>
> Or slightly better and more complete history of the incandescent lamp :
>
> http://www.ezy-reach.com/history_facts_types_lightbulbs.html
>
> I hadn't realised Lodygin was also granted an early Russian patent on
> incandescent lamps (before either of Swann or Edison) - he is better
> known for figuring out the high melting point tungsten filament bulb.
> But he was ahead of his time and it was too expensive back then.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nikolayevich_Lodygin

So Swan was a thieving bastard too? They're all carbon criminals,
ready for denouncement and re-education camps. Off with their
decomposed decadent heads!

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 19:18:31 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Neato! All my comments "airbrushed" out, apparently by socialist
Moron Brown.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 5, 5:54 pm, Mike Perkins <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 05/05/2013 16:29, Joe Gwinn wrote:

> > Martin Brown wrote:
>
> >> This is all airbrushed out of USian historical memory on an NIH
> >> basis.
>
> > Not exactly.  I was at the Edison summer estate (now museum) in
> > Florida in April 2013, and the displays there were quite clear that
> > Swann had a valid claim, and so Edison proposed a merger with Swann,
> > which Swann accepted.  There were a number of legal letters and notes
> > to this effect on display.
>
> > That said, the media are not good at getting such things straight,
> > then and now.
>

> > <http://www.edisonfordwinterestates.org/>
>
> >> Later for tactical reasons in another later critical US patent
> >> battle Swann deliberately overplayed Edison's claims to the
> >> inventive step. Essentially a flag wrapping trick to exploit US
> >> patriotism.
>
> >> A reasonable online Swann and Edison story is at:
>

> >>http://www.design-technology.info/inventors/page27.htm(page layout

> >> is dreadful)
>
> >> Or slightly better and more complete history of the incandescent
> >> lamp :
>
> >>http://www.ezy-reach.com/history_facts_types_lightbulbs.html
>
> >> I hadn't realised Lodygin was also granted an early Russian patent
> >> on incandescent lamps (before either of Swann or Edison) - he is
> >> better known for figuring out the high melting point tungsten
> >> filament bulb. But he was ahead of his time and it was too
> >> expensive back then.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nikolayevich_Lodygin
>
> History is much about credit going to those that exploit inventions
> rather than the true inventors.
>
> Anyone might think the same that it was really Gustave Whitehead who had
> the first successful powered flight, whatever next?
>

> http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/wright-...

That's not entirely unjustified--an idea for an invention in and of
itself doesn't do a whole lot. I've got notebooks full, some of them
quite good.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 6 May 2013 12:21:34 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 19:18:31 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> >On May 5, 9:26 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote
> >> On 04/05/2013 16:17, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> You are an ignorant rightard fuckwit that denies facts. You don't even
> >> have the excuse of being terminally stupid like the usual dittoheads.
> >>
> >> The facts about Swann inventing the first carbon filament lamp are
> >> clearly available for anyone but a deranged Merkin "Patriot" to see.
> >
> >It's not a matter of derangement, more that we're so prosperous that
> >the masses are fixed on more important things than inventions or
> >survival. You know, like Kim Kardshian.
> >
> >> It is quite funny when Thompson loses it to such an extent that his
> >> rationality goes completely out of the window. Interesting also to see
> >> what his views on free speech are when he doesn't like the message.
> >>

> >> Swan invented the carbon filament light bulb and Edison made a clone of

> >> the same basic product with a slightly better vacuum. Edison was
> >> undoubtedly a better businessman and self publicist as history shows.
> >>

> >> It is apparently a little bit more complex in that Swan did actually

He was being charitable. We all know that you are out of touch with reality, so there's no need to waste bandwidth by reminding people precisely how silly you can be. James Arthur has come to the party by - rather heavy-handedly - trying to make it look as if you were being satirical, rather than merely ill-informed. wasted effort, but no doubt kindly meant.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 6 May 2013 11:20:38 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 22:57:50 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com>
> wrote:
> >On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
> >>>
> >>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle against
> >>> Edison and forced him to merge their companies against his wishes.
> >>> It would have wrecked both companies to continue their legal battle.
> >>
> >> Excuses, excuses. Don't bother with FACTS.
> >>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
> >
> >Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?
>
> Swann made a business arrangement with Edison. Did he not?
>
> What is this "universally accepted course of history"?
>
> I think it's called survival of the fittest, not survival of the
> socialist worm.
>
> And the UK is a has-been country >:-}

Just like the US, and for much the same reason - too many right-wing nit-wits messing up the economy with fatuous demands for austerity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

On 05/05/2013 22:57, Mike Perkins wrote:
> On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
>>>
>>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle against
>>> Edison and forced him to merge their companies against his wishes.
>>> It would have wrecked both companies to continue their legal battle.
>>
>> Excuses, excuses. Don't bother with FACTS.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?

*HIS* opinion is worth a lot more than mere *FACTS* in his opinion.

He has been handed his head on a plate and is too arrogant to see it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 5, 10:21 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 19:18:31 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> >On May 5, 9:26 am, Martin Brown wrote:

<...>

> >> I hadn't realised Lodygin was also granted an early Russian patent on
> >> incandescent lamps (before either of Swann or Edison) - he is better
> >> known for figuring out the high melting point tungsten filament bulb.
> >> But he was ahead of his time and it was too expensive back then.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nikolayevich_Lodygin
>
> >So Swan was a thieving bastard too?  They're all carbon criminals,
> >ready for denouncement and re-education camps.  Off with their
> >decomposed decadent heads!
>
> Neato!  All my comments "airbrushed" out, apparently by socialist
> Moron Brown.

Nah, some sloppy snippage on my part. Socialist or not, Martin's no
dummy--no need for that.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 6, 4:04 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

ISTM Jim's responding more to the insults than the facts. America--
it's a quaint little country, but we like it.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Mike Perkins]

On 06/05/2013 02:20, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 22:57:50 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
>>>>
>>>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle
>>>> against Edison and forced him to merge their companies against
>>>> his wishes. It would have wrecked both companies to continue
>>>> their legal battle.
>>>
>>> Excuses, excuses. Don't bother with FACTS. ...Jim Thompson
>>
>> Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?
>
> Swann made a business arrangement with Edison. Did he not?

Yes - after Edison lost the first round of legal niceties Edison didn't
have much choice. And yes with Edison's marketing skills Swan made a
wise decision.

> What is this "universally accepted course of history"?

I guess peer reviewed analysis free from political and patriotic
distortions.

> I think it's called survival of the fittest, not survival of the
> socialist worm.
>
> And the UK is a has-been country >:-}

If one takes government overspending as an indication of political
leaning, I concede the US is way ahead of the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

> ...Jim Thompson

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 6, 7:16 am, Mike Perkins <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 06/05/2013 02:20, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Sun, 05 May 2013 22:57:50 +0100, Mike Perkins <s...@spam.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
>
> >>>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle
> >>>> against Edison and forced him to merge their companies against
> >>>> his wishes. It would have wrecked both companies to continue
> >>>> their legal battle.
>
> >>> Excuses, excuses.  Don't bother with FACTS.  ...Jim Thompson
>
> >> Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?
>
> > Swann made a business arrangement with Edison.  Did he not?
>
> Yes - after Edison lost the first round of legal niceties Edison didn't
> have much choice.  And yes with Edison's marketing skills Swan made a
> wise decision.
>
> > What is this "universally accepted course of history"?
>
> I guess peer reviewed analysis free from political and patriotic
> distortions.
>
> > I think it's called survival of the fittest, not survival of the
> > socialist worm.
>
> > And the UK is a has-been country >:-}
>
> If one takes government overspending as an indication of political
> leaning, I concede the US is way ahead of the UK:
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

That's a fair measure of a country's leaning.

That's why politics have heated up here as Obama tries to spend away
even more--about $7 trillion in deficits and new obligations added
just last year. Obama believes in taking things, promising, and
giving them away.

That's why we have a Tea Party.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Uwe Hercksen]

Klaus Bahner schrieb:

> Not to discredit Tesla, but Westinghouse. Look up "Current Wars".

Hello,

he wanted to discredit alternating current as more dangerous than direct
current and he proposed the word "to westinghouse" for the electric
chair. He even organised public electrocutions of several animals to
show the danger of alternating current. But the voltages used for
electrocution was much higher than that used for his direct current
transmission.

Bye

[Bill Sloman]

Only from the somewhat restricted perspective of the right-wing nit-wit.

> That's why politics have heated up here as Obama tries to spend away
> even more--about $7 trillion in deficits and new obligations added
> just last year. Obama believes in taking things, promising, and
> giving them away.

Actually, he believes in Keynesian deficit-funded spending to keep the country out of outright depression. He's not spending as much as he should, but that reflects the Republican majority in congress, who are nearly as ideologically brain-damaged as James Arthur.

> That's why we have a Tea Party.

Not exactly. Every country has a lunatic fringe, but in the US the richest 1% subsidise the lunatics who think that the richest 1% should have an even larger slice of the pie. It's a delusion that/s damaging the US economy, but it does appeal to economic flat-earther's like James Arthur.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

"But we like it" is a trifle more ironic than it might seem.

"Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It don't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it."

Nowadays the US still prohibits addictive substance other than ethanol, and it doesn't work any better with them than it did with ethanol.

James Arthur may not have had this verse in mind, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[rickman]

On 5/3/2013 6:39 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 3, 5:16 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/3/2013 5:27 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy<robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>
>>>>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>>

>>> That sounds like invention to me. Just saying you want to strap some
>>> wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing it.
>>
>> So you would say that Bardeen and Brattain didn't invent the transistor
>> since they were both not the first to come up with the idea *and* their
>> initial invention was hardly practical?
>
> No, I wouldn't. Their thing worked.
>
> What's more, they documented it (and its principles) well enough that
> other people could duplicate, advance, and improve it. Davy's
> whatever didn't do that--that took 78 additional years of intense,
> diligent, novel experimentation and research.

Just as Bardeen's and Brattain's invention was not the least bit
practical. Haven't you seen the images of that goofy contraption? A
huge triangle of plastic with gold leaf on the edges resting on a
silicon slab. Not really smaller than the tubes of the day and *much*
more fragile. It was others who made it practical and effective. How
is that different?

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 5/4/2013 9:20 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [*] P.C. is when you can't say something that's true, lest someone be
> offended. If it's true, it's true.

There is no such thing as PC. PC is one of those straw man issues that
is *always* discussed as what someone else is doing.

Anytime I hear someone complaining about something being PC I know they
have reached the limit of what they can support and have to resort to
blaming their lack of valid points on others.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 5/5/2013 9:42 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

> On 04/05/2013 16:11, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> It is my personal opinion that any alien village idiot who makes such
>> inflammatory statements against the United States should permanently
>> be denied entry.
>>

>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> Your conditional "support" for the right to free speech and wish to
> censor any factual material that conflicts with your rightard fuckwit
> prejudices is duly noted.

Don't you know when someone is pulling your leg? No one would really
mean what Jim wrote. If he really meant that he *would* have to be...
well, what *you* said. I'm sure he didn't mean it seriously. He's just
kidding, right Jim?

--

Rick

[Jim Thompson]

Of course. I believe in full citizenship rights for all illegals...
so they can vote for an imperial Obama >:-}

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 04:07:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

And Moron Brown, being of that socialist bent, doesn't understand the
realities of ROI.

[Tom Del Rosso]

Martin Brown wrote:
>
> ITYM Edison is widely credited in American rewritten history with
> inventing the light bulb and exploiting US corrupt patent practices to
> steal the market from Swann who actually invented, patented and
> demonstrated working light bulbs in the UK with priority.
>
> His light bulb "invention" was a straight ripoff copy of Swann's
> original patented carbon filament electric bulb. See for example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
>
> Edison was a far better self publicist and so the fact that Swann
> invented it is now largely forgotten - particularly in America.

After Edison invented the light bulb, within a few years he created the
first electrical utility which electrified New York City (not starting
small). I don't think the deployment was the work of a publicist. Did Swan
electrify a city? Was the phonograph and multiplexed communications also
the work of Edison's publicist? Edison had so many inventions before and
after this, if one of them was simultaneous with someone else then so what.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing remove the last word.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 5, 11:02 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Practicality has nothing to do with it--it's still an invention. Did
they or did they not invent a means and describe the construction of
an operational solid-state transfer-resistor? If a later improvement
relies on the original concept, then even if novel and patentable in
its own right, it's still a derivative work.

> It was others who made it practical and effective.  How
> is that different?

W.r.t. the light bulb it's impossible to say much of anything about
the merits without knowing who was patenting what, which we currently
don't. The possibilities range from "no overlap whatsoever," to
"complete duplication."

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

You probably think that Bell invented the telephone too.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 5, 11:10 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

So, if someone said women are generally physically weaker than men,
unfit for heavy combat, and/or less career-oriented, that person
wouldn't be censured?

Barack Obama's campaign site sponsored a section called "African-
Americans for Obama." Would a "White People for Romney" page on the
Romney site have been as well tolerated? Or considered offensive?
(To me they're both offensive.)

We've got a well-respected organization called the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People historically doing
fine work. How about a National Association for the Advancement of
White People, would that be okay? Why is one offensive and the other
not? Political correctness.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Mike Perkins]

Yawn, where does the need arise to credit Edison with so many firsts?

It is established by historians that Swan invented the light bulb, of a
carbon filament in an evacuated envelope.

I'm not sure of the relevance to who electrified New York City and its
"first electrical utility", but again historians don't generally credit
New York as being the first electrified city, depending on the
definition of an "electrified city" of course.

[Bumble]

On 05/03/2013 12:53 PM, Robert Macy wrote:
> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
>>
>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as
>> being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved
>> upon previous inventions to create the first commercially
>> efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb
>> is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro

>> Volta�s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first

>> electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy
>> created the first electric light. Throughout the next several
>> decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on
>> inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison
>> became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500
>> hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
>

> interesting, I had heard he also invented the electric chair as an
> attempt to discredit Tesla. And, the first three users were horribly
> burned to death in an excruciating roasting effects.

Edison saw no reason to cooperate, and he continued his experiments at
varying levels of voltage with dozens of stray dogs purchased from
neighborhood boys in Orange, New Jersey at 25 cents each.

At his West Orange laboratory, the inventor wired electrodes to several
calves and a horse

Kemmler wheezed and gasped before the horrified witnesses as the
electricity began to course through his body. Some witnesses fainted
while others vomited, as it appeared that Kemmler was on the verge of
regaining consciousness. The back of his coat briefly caught fire.
Minutes passed until Kemmler finally went rigid.

Topsy the Elephant was electrocuted by Thomas Edison's technicians at
Coney Island before a crowd of thousands.

<http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2011/10/edison-vs-westinghouse-a-shocking-rivalry/>

[Tom Del Rosso]

Mike Perkins wrote:
> On 07/05/2013 02:25, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > Martin Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > ITYM Edison is widely credited in American rewritten history with
> > > inventing the light bulb and exploiting US corrupt patent
> > > practices to steal the market from Swann who actually invented,
> > > patented and demonstrated working light bulbs in the UK with
> > > priority. His light bulb "invention" was a straight ripoff copy of
> > > Swann's
> > > original patented carbon filament electric bulb. See for example:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
> > >
> > > Edison was a far better self publicist and so the fact that Swann
> > > invented it is now largely forgotten - particularly in America.
> >
> > After Edison invented the light bulb, within a few years he created
> > the first electrical utility which electrified New York City (not
> > starting small). I don't think the deployment was the work of a
> > publicist. Did Swan electrify a city? Was the phonograph and
> > multiplexed communications also the work of Edison's publicist?
> > Edison had so many inventions before and after this, if one of them
> > was simultaneous with someone else then so what.
>
> Yawn, where does the need arise to credit Edison with so many firsts?

Yawn, taking them individually, the need to credit him with the first
multiplexed communications arose when he invented it, not only on paper but
making it work. The same applies to the others.

> It is established by historians that Swan invented the light bulb, of
> a carbon filament in an evacuated envelope.

By a few months. As I said, so what. He didn't develop it beyond lighting
one building, and that taken together with the near simultaneity means TAE
deserves most of the credit.

> I'm not sure of the relevance to who electrified New York City

Then there's little hope of explaining why a thing that huge is relevant.

> and its
> "first electrical utility", but again historians don't generally
> credit New York as being the first electrified city, depending on the
> definition of an "electrified city" of course.

Edison started with the densest part of the city, which is more of a city
than most complete cities. Small cities might have been finished first, but
again so what. Laborers can only work so fast, and it was the first to be
started.

[Bill Sloman]

Edison wasn't so much an inventor as a developer of new products. The problem with new products is that you have to inform the buying public that there is a new product out there for them to buy. A better mousetrap may sell itself, but people have got to be in the habit of buying mousetraps in the first place for this to work.

Newspaper reports that depicted him as an inventive genius filled more column inches than more realistic stories. You do have to keep in mind that the most attention-getting stories aren't always those that are precisely correct.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[rickman]

I think it is clear that according to your principles, Humphrey Davy was
the inventor of the electric light. Everything else would be derivative
work.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 5/6/2013 10:13 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 5, 11:10 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/4/2013 9:20 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> [*] P.C. is when you can't say something that's true, lest someone be
>>> offended. If it's true, it's true.
>>
>> There is no such thing as PC. PC is one of those straw man issues that
>> is *always* discussed as what someone else is doing.
>>
>> Anytime I hear someone complaining about something being PC I know they
>> have reached the limit of what they can support and have to resort to
>> blaming their lack of valid points on others.
>
> So, if someone said women are generally physically weaker than men,
> unfit for heavy combat, and/or less career-oriented, that person
> wouldn't be censured?

Yes, but because of the facts, not because it isn't "PC". The facts are
that women, just like men, vary. Some are suitable for "heavy combat"
and others aren't. Do they accept *all* men in the military? No, they
have qualifications. Gender doesn't have a use as one the qualifications.

> Barack Obama's campaign site sponsored a section called "African-
> Americans for Obama." Would a "White People for Romney" page on the
> Romney site have been as well tolerated? Or considered offensive?
> (To me they're both offensive.)

Ok, they are offensive. Who would be the judge on whether it is PC or
not? NO ONE! PC doesn't exist in the sense that people use it.

> We've got a well-respected organization called the National
> Association for the Advancement of Colored People historically doing
> fine work. How about a National Association for the Advancement of
> White People, would that be okay? Why is one offensive and the other
> not? Political correctness.

I don't find a NAAWP offensive. I might find it silly or otherwise odd,
but I don't find it offensive, but then that all depends on their stated
purposes and functions doesn't it?

--

Rick

[Mike Perkins]

You mean because Edison and Swan competing companies chose to merge you
see that as reason to credit Edison with the invention?

>> I'm not sure of the relevance to who electrified New York City
>
> Then there's little hope of explaining why a thing that huge is
> relevant.

As you suggest, it was done in parts and Edison's insistence on being a
DC system meant it was never going to happen fully using Edison technology.

[Mike Perkins]

I wouldn't be so disingenuous with his inventive abilities. It was
because he had a flare for business such that he could put his ideas
into practice.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 6, 11:11 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 04:07:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 6, 4:04 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> On 05/05/2013 22:57, Mike Perkins wrote:
>
> >> > On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
>
> >> >>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle against
> >> >>> Edison and forced him to merge their companies against his wishes.
> >> >>> It would have wrecked both companies to continue their legal battle.
>
> >> >> Excuses, excuses.  Don't bother with FACTS.
>
> >> >>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>
> >> > Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?
>
> >> *HIS* opinion is worth a lot more than mere *FACTS* in his opinion.
>
> >> He has been handed his head on a plate and is too arrogant to see it.
>
> >ISTM Jim's responding more to the insults than the facts.  America--
> >it's a quaint little country, but we like it.
>
> And Moron Brown, being of that socialist bent, doesn't understand the
> realities of ROI.

He' s not a moron. I'm not sure he's wrong about corruption in our
patent office back then either--some of the other early tech patents
had some hocus-pocus going on.

That's the nature of governments. Government are made of men, and
both are corruptible. Indeed, the one encourages the other--"Power
corrupts," etc. Or as Madison famously wrote, "If men were
angels,..."

The odd thing is that the people correctly most critical, least-
satisfied with, and least-trusting of government, are the same who
insist we need much more of it.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 06:41:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> Government bureaucrats. But I'll have my fun... lawyers are not
> >> nearly as fast on their feet as I am when it comes to technology >:-}
> >>
> >> I once had a patent application (my first ever) challenged by a patent
> >> examiner. I responded to his denial by saying he was just too stupid
> >> to understand. The patent was granted...
> >>
> >> http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Pat-3491301.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought that your first patent was for fire? ;-)
>
> No. Just the brimstone ;-)


Brimstone loses its punch, without plenty of fire. :)

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bumble wrote:
>
> Topsy the Elephant was electrocuted by Thomas Edison's technicians at
> Coney Island before a crowd of thousands.
>
> <http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2011/10/edison-vs-westinghouse-a-shocking-rivalry/>

AKA: Edison's prototype of the "Hot Dogger".

[Bill Sloman]

Perhaps they've noticed that governments aren't the only organisations around.

James Arthur has this delusion that the invisible hand of the market perfects non-government organisations, but in reality the market generates it's own distortions and corruptions, and we need government and regulatory systems, plus a system of laws to keep the whole shoddy edifice more or less on track.

Government has been described as the biggest protection racket in town, but minimising your elected government merely boosts the role of the second biggest protection racket in town - in the US it's the filthy rich - who you don't have the option of voting out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

The word you are looking for isn't "disingenuous". I'm not minimising his abilities as an inventor - just pointing out that his publicity machine put more emphasis on this aspect of his career because it made for more attention-grabbing stories. Like all myths, the myth of Edison-the-inventor is based on real facts, but - as in every other mythologisation - the truth has been distorted to create a more entertaining and absorbing narrative.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[rickman]

On 5/4/2013 9:20 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 4, 11:11 am, Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

>>
>> It is my personal opinion that any alien village idiot who makes such
>> inflammatory statements against the United States should permanently
>> be denied entry.
>

> Hey, let's not get politically correct[*] censorship here! Martin's
> certainly right--whatever Swan did is long forgotten here.

>
> [*] P.C. is when you can't say something that's true, lest someone be
> offended. If it's true, it's true.

PC is in the mind of the beholder... mostly in the mind of the speaker.

--

Rick

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 10:23 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nope.

The patented invention in this example isn't "light bulb," it's
whatever novel feature the inventor adds, claims, and describes.

It's not "using electricity to produce light," that was old hat.
It's not "heating a filament with electricity," that had been done
too, if badly.
Would "light by electrical discharge" follow as an obvious variation?
If so, why wasn't lightning prior art?

Did Humphrey Davy describe a durable filament enclosed in an evacuated
glass envelope, and the materials and construction of these, the
methods of attaching electrodes, and what kind?

What did Edison claim to have invented? Did Edison patent a specific
filament material or construction or method of constructing, and Swan
a completely distinctly different means of achieving the same end? Or
was heating to incandescence with an electrical current the patented
matter?

It's hard to see how everyone can be so absolutely sure of everything,
without knowing any of it.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 10:28 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/6/2013 10:13 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 11:10 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 5/4/2013 9:20 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> [*] P.C. is when you can't say something that's true, lest someone be
> >>> offended.  If it's true, it's true.
>
> >> There is no such thing as PC.  PC is one of those straw man issues that
> >> is *always* discussed as what someone else is doing.
>
> >> Anytime I hear someone complaining about something being PC I know they
> >> have reached the limit of what they can support and have to resort to
> >> blaming their lack of valid points on others.
>
> > So, if someone said women are generally physically weaker than men,
> > unfit for heavy combat, and/or less career-oriented, that person
> > wouldn't be censured?
>
> Yes, but because of the facts, not because it isn't "PC".  The facts are
> that women, just like men, vary.  Some are suitable for "heavy combat"
> and others aren't.  Do they accept *all* men in the military?  No, they
> have qualifications.  Gender doesn't have a use as one the qualifications.

So, women *in general* are equally good humping 120-lb packs at
altitude, in the Afghan mountains, and wouldn't slow your squad down
under fire?

Good luck!

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

Why not find that patent and find out?

> If so, why wasn't lightning prior art?

Scarcely useful for domestic or theatre lighting, even if you had your own portable thunderstorm.

> Did Humphrey Davy describe a durable filament enclosed in an evacuated
> glass envelope, and the materials and construction of these, the
> methods of attaching electrodes, and what kind?

Obviously not. He invented the carbon arc lamp, and had earlier heated a platinum strip to incandescence in a laboratory demonstration - it wasn't presented as an incipient electric lamp.

> What did Edison claim to have invented? Did Edison patent a specific
> filament material or construction or method of constructing, and Swan
> a completely distinctly different means of achieving the same end? Or
> was heating to incandescence with an electrical current the patented
> matter?

Why not read the patent? It's a matter of record.

U.S. Patent 0,223,898 granted 27 January 1880

> It's hard to see how everyone can be so absolutely sure of everything,
> without knowing any of it.

But your own ignorance is some kind of virtue?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

No more than men "in general". Making up that kind of squad depends on selecting individuals with particular capabilities. Only a lunatic would assume that every male was equally suitable for such a squad.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[josephkk]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:07:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>
>>> So you would say that Bardeen and Brattain didn't invent the transistor
>>> since they were both not the first to come up with the idea *and* their
>>> initial invention was hardly practical?
>>
>>No, I wouldn't. Their thing worked.
>>
>>What's more, they documented it (and its principles) well enough that
>>other people could duplicate, advance, and improve it. Davy's
>>whatever didn't do that--that took 78 additional years of intense,
>>diligent, novel experimentation and research.
>

>Used to be "reduction to practice" was the key. NOW, I'm fighting a
>patent scammer who patented a block diagram :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Well, we have "big business" to thank for that. Nearly everything gets
cross (dross?) licensed and the corpoRATe sponsors are happy. But Mr/Ms
small cannot get into the club (which is what the corpoRATe entities want,
exclusion of new thought/competition).

We have the best legislature and regulators that money can buy.

?-)

[josephkk]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 19:54:13 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/3/2013 7:45 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 19:37:29 -0400, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>> On 5/3/2013 7:07 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Used to be "reduction to practice" was the key. NOW, I'm fighting a
>>>> patent scammer who patented a block diagram :-(
>>>

>>> Hmmm... any particular block diagram, or just the concept of block
>>> diagrams? I've got one on my white board I think I'm going to erase. I
>>> don't need any lawsuits!
>>
>> Basically, without divulging the client, patent scammer patented a
>> block diagram, call it a "car", it can go forward and backward and has
>> brakes and can turn... but absolutely nothing about how to build the
>> car. My client _built_ the "car" and now is being sued for infringing
>> the scammer's patent. We go to trial in November.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but to get a patent you have to actually say
>how to build the thing, no? Even if it is as little as saying, a car
>with a motor and brakes, etc. How did the patent ever get granted with
>no description of how to build it?

Because the review process has devolved into 'did you properly dot your
"t"s and cross your "i"s'. It was way better when you had to provide a
working example.

?-)

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

So you did, and are ready to compare and contrast Edison v. Swann v.
Davy's? Slick, thanks. Where's your analysis?

I tried last week and couldn't--the USPTO servers weren't serving it.
But, it's futile anyway--if Rickman doesn't understand patent art, my
understanding it won't help him. The hypotheticals above were meant
to inspire him, to provide examples to clarify his thinking.

> > It's hard to see how everyone can be so absolutely sure of everything,
> > without knowing any of it.
>
> But your own ignorance is some kind of virtue?

It's hard to see why I'm responsible for researching Rickman's beliefs
and explaining why he's wrong--I've taken no position on the Swan vs.
Edison aspect, simply pointed out reasons why it might not be as
simple as it seems.

But, if being constructive on the merits were your aim, we'll look
forward to you doing what you just said---comparing the claimed matter
in the two patents--and reporting.

Personally, I'm amply satisfied that Davy's carbon arc and the
incandescent filament lamps 78 years later are distinct inventions. I
gave a sketch of some of the distinguishing inventive elements above.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 11 May 2013 22:01:03 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 10, 1:39 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 May 2013 02:26:11 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com  wrote:
> > > On May 7, 10:23 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/6/2013 9:32 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On May 5, 11:02 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > > >> On 5/3/2013 6:39 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >>> On May 3, 5:16 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> > > > >>>> On 5/3/2013 5:27 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On May 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Macy<robert.a.m...@gmail.com>      wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> On May 3, 12:30 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>> Relieved they could get the history straight:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>> "Although American inventor Thomas Edison is widely credited as being the person who invented the light bulb, he actually improved upon previous inventions to create the first commercially efficient, widely used light bulb. The creation of the light bulb is thought to have begun in 1800 with Italian inventor Alessandro Volta s invention of the voltaic wire, which provided the first electrical current. That same year, English scientist Humphrey Davy created the first electric light. Throughout the next several decades, it is estimated that as many as 20 inventors worked on inventing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb. In 1879, Edison became the first to succeed. His bulb could burn for about 1,500 hours, compared with previous versions that lasted only minutes."
> >
> > > > >>>>> That sounds like invention to me.  Just saying you want to strap
> > > > >>>>> some wings on a bus and fly to the moon isn't the same as doing
> > > > >>>>> it.
> >
> > > > >>>> So you would say that Bardeen and Brattain didn't invent the
> > > > >>>> transistor since they were both not the first to come up with the
> > > > >>>> idea *and* their initial invention was hardly practical?
> >
> > > > >>> No, I wouldn't.  Their thing worked.
> >
> > > > >>> What's more, they documented it (and its principles) well enough
> > > > >>> that other people could duplicate, advance, and improve it.  Davy's
> > > > >>> whatever didn't do that--that took 78 additional years of intense

> > > > >>> diligent, novel experimentation and research.
> >
> > > > >> Just as Bardeen's and Brattain's invention was not the least bit
> > > > >> practical.  Haven't you seen the images of that goofy contraption?  A
> > > > >> huge triangle of plastic with gold leaf on the edges resting on a
> > > > >> silicon slab.  Not really smaller than the tubes of the day and
> > > > >> *much* more fragile.
> >
> > > > > Practicality has nothing to do with it--it's still an invention.  Did
> > > > > they or did they not invent a means and describe the construction of
> > > > > an operational solid-state transfer-resistor?  If a later improvement
> > > > > relies on the original concept, then even if novel and patentable in
> > > > > its own right, it's still a derivative work.
> >
> > > > >> It was others who made it practical and effective.  How
> > > > >> is that different?
> >
> > > > > W.r.t. the light bulb it's impossible to say much of anything about
> > > > > the merits without knowing who was patenting what, which we currently
> > > > > don't.  The possibilities range from "no overlap whatsoever," to
> > > > > "complete duplication."
> >
> > > > I think it is clear that according to your principles, Humphrey Davy was
> > > > the inventor of the electric light.  Everything else would be derivative
> > > > work.
> >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > > The patented invention in this example isn't "light bulb," it'

> > > whatever novel feature the inventor adds, claims, and describes
> >

> > > It's not "using electricity to produce light," that was old hat.
> >
> > > It's not "heating a filament with electricity," that had been done
> > > too, if badly.
> >
> > > Would "light by electrical discharge" follow as an obvious variation?
>
> > Why not find that patent and find out?
> >
> > > If so, why wasn't lightning prior art?
> >
> > Scarcely useful for domestic or theatre lighting, even if you had your own > > portable thunderstorm.
> >
> > > Did Humphrey Davy describe a durable filament enclosed in an evacuated
> > > glass envelope, and the materials and construction of these, the
> > > methods of attaching electrodes, and what kind?
> >
> > Obviously not. He invented the carbon arc lamp, and had earlier heated a
> > platinum strip to incandescence in a laboratory demonstration - it wasn't
> >presented as an incipient electric lamp.
> >
> > > What did Edison claim to have invented?  Did Edison patent a specific
> > > filament material or construction or method of constructing, and Swan
> > > a completely distinctly different means of achieving the same end?  Or
> > > was heating to incandescence with an electrical current the patented
> > > matter?
> >
> > Why not read the patent? It's a matter of record.
> >
> > U.S. Patent 0,223,898 granted 27 January 1880
>
> So you did, and are ready to compare and contrast Edison v. Swann v.
> Davy's?

No. I wasn't asking the silly questio9ns in the first place, let alone pontificating about stuff that I clearly didn't know much about.

<snipped silly comment>

>
> I tried last week and couldn't--the USPTO servers weren't serving it.
>
> But, it's futile anyway--if Rickman doesn't understand patent art, my
> understanding it won't help him. The hypotheticals above were meant
> to inspire him, to provide examples to clarify his thinking.

Except that Humphrey Davey was invoked in a way that didn't have much to do with the historical record. "Hypotheticals" that are compleltley off the wall don't clarify anybody's thinking.

> > > It's hard to see how everyone can be so absolutely sure of everything,
> > > without knowing any of it.
> >

> > But your own ignorance is some kind of virtue?
>
> It's hard to see why I'm responsible for researching Rickman's beliefs
> and explaining why he's wrong--I've taken no position on the Swan vs.
> Edison aspect, simply pointed out reasons why it might not be as
> simple as it seems.

The reference to Humphrey Davy wasn't Rickman's and your dragging Davy in didn't clarify anybody's thinking.

>
> But, if being constructive on the merits were your aim, we'll look
> forward to you doing what you just said---comparing the claimed matter
> in the two patents--and reporting.

Why should I? The historians did it many years ago, not to mention Swan and Edison's patent lawyers, and Edison lost, in court, and in the historical record. His publicity machine ignored this at the time, and Swan was happy to leave him to exploit the US market for their mutual benefit.

> Personally, I'm amply satisfied that Davy's carbon arc and the
> incandescent filament lamps 78 years later are distinct inventions.

Wow. Most people would settle for asserting that a 78 year gap was persuasive argument, but you have to tell us that you find it personally satisfying.

> I gave a sketch of some of the distinguishing inventive elements above.

So your "hypotheticals" are now promoted to "distinguishing inventive elements". You do like your straw men, but promoting them in mid-argument is a little transparent, even for you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[josephkk]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 22:57:50 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com> wrote:

>On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
>>>
>>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle against
>>> Edison and forced him to merge their companies against his wishes.
>>> It would have wrecked both companies to continue their legal battle.
>>
>> Excuses, excuses. Don't bother with FACTS.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?

To begin with there is no "universally accepted course of history". To
help you understand this i highly recommend that you get a copy of
"Interpretations of American History" by Grob and Billias. To really
learn take a course based on the book at your local or online university.

http://books.simonandschuster.ca/Interpretations-of-American-History-6th-Ed-Vol/Grob-Billias/9781451602340

?-)

[josephkk]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 12:16:22 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com> wrote:

>On 06/05/2013 02:20, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 22:57:50 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/05/2013 17:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:42:44 +0100, Martin Brown
>>>>>
>>>>> Swann actually won the first round of his US patent battle
>>>>> against Edison and forced him to merge their companies against
>>>>> his wishes. It would have wrecked both companies to continue
>>>>> their legal battle.
>>>>
>>>> Excuses, excuses. Don't bother with FACTS. ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>> Are you in denial of the universally accepted course of history?
>>

>> Swann made a business arrangement with Edison. Did he not?
>
>Yes - after Edison lost the first round of legal niceties Edison didn't
>have much choice. And yes with Edison's marketing skills Swan made a
>wise decision.
>
>> What is this "universally accepted course of history"?
>
>I guess peer reviewed analysis free from political and patriotic
>distortions.

See my previous post. There ain't no such thing. That is the point Grob
and Billias make so resoundingly. And that is just US history (since the
revolutionary era at that, most of the pre-columbian history has been
lost). Scale it up to world history and soo many records are lost (or
never created) that we will never know.

?-)

>
>> I think it's called survival of the fittest, not survival of the
>> socialist worm.
>>
>> And the UK is a has-been country >:-}
>
>If one takes government overspending as an indication of political
>leaning, I concede the US is way ahead of the UK:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt
>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>>

[josephkk]

We seem to run in polar opposite circles of people. All the people that i
associate with that want bigger government, trust it way too completely;
and the ones that want smallest government that can do the job, distrust
it the most.

Or maybe they are all fooling me.

?-)

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 11, 8:42 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 May 2013 22:01:03 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com  wrote:

> > But, if being constructive on the merits were your aim, we'll look
> > forward to you doing what you just said---comparing the claimed matter
> > in the two patents--and reporting.
>
> Why should I?

Exactly.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

You really need to take a course in ethical argument, which would teach you that you ought to refrain from text-chopping, or at least mark your snips.

In the meantime, note that there's no virtue in recapitulating a well-established and documented historical point. It is well-known that Edison did not invent the filament lamp, though he made a lot of money out of selling his version of Swan's invention. One-eyed American patriots have trouble forgetting what they were miss-taught in school. You've got a similar problem with the economic nonsense that you soaked up before you could know better.

You do need a de-programmer, but you are the last person to realise that you need that kind of help.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 11, 10:34 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com  wrote:
> > On May 11, 8:42 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 11 May 2013 22:01:03 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com  wrote:
>
> > > > But, if being constructive on the merits were your aim, we'll look
> > > > forward to you doing what you just said---comparing the claimed matter
> > > > in the two patents--and reporting.
>
> > > Why should I?
>
> > Exactly.
>
> You really need to take a course in ethical argument, which would teach you that you ought to refrain from text-chopping, or at least mark your snips.

I'm not going to argue with you Bill. You're trolling, your points
are vapid, and it's boring.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 12 May 2013 15:42:51 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 11, 10:34 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 12 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com  wrote:
> > > On May 11, 8:42 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 11 May 2013 22:01:03 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com  wrote:
> >
> > > > > But, if being constructive on the merits were your aim, we'll look
> > > > > forward to you doing what you just said---comparing the claimed
> > > > > matter in the two patents--and reporting.
> >
> > > > Why should I?
> >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > You really need to take a course in ethical argument, which would teach you > > that you ought to refrain from text-chopping, or at least mark your snips.
>
> I'm not going to argue with you Bill.

Because you'd look even sillier than you do now.

> You're trolling, your points
> are vapid, and it's boring.

But correct. Not the most gracious concession I've seen, but backing down is backing down, no matter how ungraciously it's done.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

On 10/05/2013 17:26, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 7, 10:23 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/6/2013 9:32 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>> W.r.t. the light bulb it's impossible to say much of anything about
>>> the merits without knowing who was patenting what, which we currently
>>> don't. The possibilities range from "no overlap whatsoever," to
>>> "complete duplication."
>>
>> I think it is clear that according to your principles, Humphrey Davy was
>> the inventor of the electric light. Everything else would be derivative
>> work.
>
> Nope.

No. The carbon arc lamp was a distinct other technology.

>
> The patented invention in this example isn't "light bulb," it's
> whatever novel feature the inventor adds, claims, and describes.
>
> It's not "using electricity to produce light," that was old hat.
> It's not "heating a filament with electricity," that had been done
> too, if badly.
> Would "light by electrical discharge" follow as an obvious variation?
> If so, why wasn't lightning prior art?
>
> Did Humphrey Davy describe a durable filament enclosed in an evacuated
> glass envelope, and the materials and construction of these, the
> methods of attaching electrodes, and what kind?
>
> What did Edison claim to have invented? Did Edison patent a specific
> filament material or construction or method of constructing, and Swan
> a completely distinctly different means of achieving the same end? Or
> was heating to incandescence with an electrical current the patented
> matter?

Edison copied Swann's earlier UK patent and filed a patent in the USA.
The crucial features were a pure high impedance carbon filament in a
vacuum protected by a glass envelope so it lasted a thousand hours.

>
> It's hard to see how everyone can be so absolutely sure of everything,
> without knowing any of it.

He literally claimed to have invented Swann's light bulb but in America!
He may have had a slightly better vacuum but it was a rip off copy.

It was a close run thing. Lots of people were playing with essentially
the same technology of thin conductor in a glass vacuum envelope.

Edison's 1880 US light bulb patent was subsequently invalidated in
October 1883 due to prior art claims by William Sawyer something else
which US revisionist history chooses to ignore. Edison's patent was
later reinstated in 1889 after they had combined forces and Swan altered
his own story to enable them to game the US patent system.

http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Edison_Swan_Electric_Co

I have been able to find Edison's 1880 patent in full online:

<http://www.google.com/patents?id=IhdhAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false>

I have not so far been able to find a free access copy of Swanns UK or
US patents. The poor guy is very much ignored these days. However,
contemporaneous records do show that he won the first round patent
battle and that at the Paris exhibition of 1881 where Edison and Swann
both exhibited Swann was honoured by the French President with the
'Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur' in recognition of his invention.

http://www.kstc.co.uk/josephswan/compare.html

Swann also beat a patent infringement claim by Edison in the UK - a
result which led to them joining forces to defend against other claims.

US history rewriting now pretends that Edison was the inventor of the
carbon filament light bulb. Swann later played along with this story to
make legal action in the USA against other competitors easier and in
1889 Edison's 1880 US patent was reinstated.

Here is a somewhat US'o'centric history of the electric light bulb which
if you only read the top bit would give you the impression that Edison
really was the true inventor - but read on to the end...

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/lightbulb.htm

Note how they have fiddled the criteria to get the "right" answer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 13/05/2013 09:04, Martin Brown wrote:

> I have been able to find Edison's 1880 patent in full online:
>
> <http://www.google.com/patents?id=IhdhAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false>
>
>
> I have not so far been able to find a free access copy of Swanns UK or
> US patents. The poor guy is very much ignored these days. However,
> contemporaneous records do show that he won the first round patent
> battle and that at the Paris exhibition of 1881 where Edison and Swann
> both exhibited Swann was honoured by the French President with the
> 'Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur' in recognition of his invention.

Finding a patent number and a bit of educated guesswork gets me:

http://www.google.com/patents/US233445?printsec=abstract&dq=233,445&ei=0qWQUbqNAsHFPYCMgNAP#v=onepage&q=233%2C445&f=false

So now you can compare the US patents in detail side by side.

I still can't find a free access copy of his UK patent :(

And here is the earlier Sawyer prior art patent 205,144 as well.

http://www.google.com/patents/US205144?printsec=abstract&dq=205,144&ei=J6eQUby8NrLJ0AW-_YGgDg#v=onepage&q=205%2C144&f=false

--
Regards,
Martin Brown