Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (145750)	1/29/2019 2:53:23 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217846

human carrying drones shall happen, speed would increase, weaponised for sure, stealth-ed, and and and it takes a few nano-seconds to come up w/ weaponisation ideas, unfortunately, but it is what people do

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (145750)	2/5/2019 10:42:28 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217846

the hubbub re missiles and treaty to limit same, now officially evolves into a new arms race neither team Russia nor team USA talk about reaching missile parity w/ China, as that would involve the two teams destroying up to 11,750 warheads / launch vehicles, since team China only maintains a stockpile of few hundred (250?) the neat thing about maintaining only 250 is that it is less expensive, easier to upgrade, and as credible as 6,500 and since team china chose to base the rockets on trucks and rail rolling stock, is easy to hide and inexpensive to exercise, unlike fixed silos and submarines and airplanes the problem of having a lot of money to waste is that the money is wasted, invariably zerohedge.com Putin Orders "Symmetrical Measures" After INF Treaty Pullout: New Missile Systems By 2021So now the race is on — a dangerous new Cold War style arms race between Russia and the United States that is. Reuters has issued an alarming report which highlights "Russia will race to develop two new land-based missile launch systems before 2021 to respond to Washington’s planned exit from a landmark nuclear arms control pact, it said on Tuesday." [url=][/url]Image source: Reuters/National ReviewThe Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) effectively collapsed over the weekend following the US announcing Friday that it's suspending all obligations under the treaty. Predictably Moscow's response was swift with President Vladimir Putin saying in a Saturday meeting with his foreign and defense ministers that Russia will now pursue missile development previously banned under its terms. Putin said "ours will be a mirror response" in a tit-for-tat move that the Russian president ultimately blames on Washington's years-long "systematic" undermining of the agreement. And now Russia's Defense Ministry is essentially saying "game on" — per Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu's new orders issued on Tuesday: “From Feb. 2, the United States suspended its obligations under the INF treaty,” Shoigu told a meeting of defense heads. “At the same time they are actively working to create a land-based missile with a range of more than 500 km which is outside the treaty’s limits. President Putin has given the defense ministry the task of taking symmetrical measures.” What will these "symmetrical measures" consist in? Putin outlined this in prior statements over the weekend, according to Reuters: Washington had made clear it planned to start research, development and design work on new missile systems and Moscow would do the same, Putin said. The Russian military should start work on creating land-based launch systems for an existing ship-launched cruise missile, the Kalibr, and for longer-range hypersonic missiles which travel at least five times the speed of sound, he said. Crucially, however, he noted that there were no plans to deploy short and mid-range missiles to Europe unless the US does it first — a worst nightmare scenario that has rattled European leaders ever since talk began from Trump that the 1987 treaty could be scrapped. Putin still seemed to allow some degree space for last minute concessions as "still on the table" possibly in line with the Trump administration's desire to modernize and update a new treaty taking into account new technological and geopolitical realities, such as China's ballistic missile capabilities. “Let’s wait until our partners mature sufficiently to hold a level, meaningful conversation on this topic, which is extremely important for us, them, and the entire world,” Putin said during his weekend comments. But also lashing out during the press conference that followed the meeting with top officials Putin described: Over many years, we have repeatedly suggested staging new disarmament talks, on all types of weapons. Over the last few years, we have seen our initiatives not supported. On the contrary, pretexts are constantly sought to demolish the existing system of international security. Specifically he and FM Sergei Lavrov referenced not only Trump's threats to quit the agreement, which heightened in December, but accusations leveled from Washington that the Kremlin was in violation. The White House has now affirmed the bilateral historic agreement signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan will be suspended for 180 days. Lavrov insisted that Moscow “attempted to do everything we could to rescue the treaty.” [url=][/url]Saturday meeting over the INF at the Kremlin between President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (left) and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, via Sputnik.Both sides are now blaming the other's refusal to return to the table. On Tuesday US disarmament ambassador Robert Wood stated before a U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that the United States would reconsider its withdrawal from the INF treaty “should Russia return to full and verifiable compliance.” *“This is Russia’s final opportunity to return to compliance,”* Wood said; however, this clearly doesn't appear much of a humble open-handed invitation urging Moscow to return in good faith. It now appears both sides are hardening in their position, which doesn't bode well for a potential future return of a Cold War style arms race. Indeed it appears to have already begun.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (145750)	2/5/2019 10:51:10 PM
From: TobagoJack	2 Recommendations Recommended By Arran Yuan Joseph Silent Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217846

oh oh, the deep-state is wanting to emulate what they allege team china does, pilfering IP nationalinterest.org Why China Is Winning the 5G WarIf America wants to lead in 5G, then it must clear the path for strong competition among leading American technology companies. There is little doubt today that American superiority in the next generation of mobile communications, commonly called 5G, is a matter of extraordinary national concern. There is also little doubt that China is a strong competitor, already having outspent the United States by $24 billion and planning $411 billion in 5G investment over the next decade. The Chinese government has also laid out multiple national plans for establishing the country as a leader in mobile technology, and the Chinese firm Huawei is poised to be the top smartphone manufacturer by 2020. And what are United States companies doing about this? Bickering over patents. For years, the leading American supplier of advanced mobile communications chips has been the San Diego-based Qualcomm. The company has been an innovator of mobile technology, but it has also been a remarkable innovator of convoluted legal strategies. As an ongoing Federal Trade Commission lawsuit alleges , Qualcomm has used its dominant position as a chip supplier and its extensive patent holdings to weave an intricate web of patent licensing across the mobile industry. The effect of that complex licensing scheme, the FTC claims, has been to force competitor chipmakers out of the market and to extract concessions and high patent royalties from smartphone and mobile-device makers. Qualcomm today faces only one major U.S. competitor—Intel, whose chips Apple recently started using instead of Qualcomm’s. Not surprisingly, Qualcomm has leveraged its patents to force a retaliatory investigation against Apple, the effect of which could be, as an administrative judge recently determined , to boot Intel out of the mobile-chip market and leave Qualcomm as a monopoly. It is hard to imagine that this infighting among Apple, Intel and Qualcomm is getting the United States very far in 5G, and it is harder to imagine that Qualcomm’s desired outcome would do so, either. The best path, instead, is the obvious one: allowing competition and expanding the number of firms working on 5G. Competition encourages companies to out-innovate each other in order to grab market share. Of particular importance to 5G, competition leads to better cybersecurity in products, making them less vulnerable to hacking or misuse. Competition is especially crucial when it comes to the technical standards that define how 5G works. These standards are the work of 3GPP, an international consortium of technology companies in the field. Chinese players such as Huawei and ZTE are major participants in 3GPP. Ensuring that 3GPP’s standards reflect American values requires having as many American companies at the negotiating table as possible—which is harder to achieve when those companies are trying to sue each other out of business. Certainly patents themselves, as rewards for new inventions, are a driver of innovation in areas such as 5G. The problem, though, is not the existence of a patent system but the ever-expanding power of the patent laws, which encourage companies to pour dollars into complex patent licensing and assertion schemes—as companies like Qualcomm have done—rather than to perform the hard work of building new technologies. When innovation in patent strategy is more profitable than actual innovation, we lose the race to 5G and other technologies. But don’t take my word for it. Multiple members of Congress , from both sides of the aisle, have denounced the use of patents to kick companies like Intel out of 5G development, predicting that such actions would “dampen the quality, innovation, competitive pricing, and in this case the preservation of a strong U.S. presence in the development of 5G and thus the national security of the United States.” Or look to what China itself is doing. The Chinese government is handing out rewards left and right to encourage technology research and development. Indeed, it grants subsidies and financial benefits (ranging from the ordinary to the imperfect to the bizarre) to encourage its citizens to file for patents. But while China specifically encourages filing for patents, it does little to encourage using them: Patent infringement awards in court are peanuts—often only five figures —and most Chinese patent owners drop their patents within five years of getting them. The message in China is clear: You will be rewarded for innovating, but not for quibbling over patents. The United States should take the same tack if it wants to match China in 5G. Ever-stronger patent rights encourage counterproductive disputes that are a drag on industry, a drag on research and development, and ultimately a drag on domestic competitiveness on the global stage. If America wants to lead in 5G, then it must clear the path for strong competition among leading American technology companies. Charles Duan is the Director of Technology and Innovation at the R Street Institute. Image: Reuters