The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare

[paulitician]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

It is extremely unlikely that O'Malley will get the nomination. See for example this analysis.

We'll see. But regardless, the GOP needs to go with a Rubio/Fiorina Ticket. Anything other than that, will be perceived as just throwing more angry old greedy white dudes at us. They should take my advice and go with Rubio/Fiorina. Otherwise, they have no chance.

 

[JoshuaZ]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

It is extremely unlikely that O'Malley will get the nomination. See for example this analysis.

We'll see. But regardless, the GOP needs to go with a Rubio/Fiorina Ticket. Anything other than that, will be perceived as just throwing more angry old greedy white dudes at us. They should take my advice and go with Rubio/Fiorina. Otherwise, they have no chance.

Conditional on the final GOP ticket not being Rubio/Fiorina or Fiorina/Rubio, how low is "no chance"? 10%? 5%? Lower?

 

[daws101]

we can compare portfolios if you want, but I assure you that mine exceeds yours by a very significant amount. in 2008 when everyone was selling, I bought, and it has paid off big time.

so you profited from misery ....how conservative !

This seems extremely unfair. Buying when a market is low is a perfectly normal and useful thing. Moreover, it is necessary for markets to function: First, if no one buys then then prices will drop even further and the people who are selling because they need to sell won't get the money they need. Second, if no one starts buying when the prices are low, the prices don't recover. Don't blame or criticize people for engaging in basic financial transactions.

don't you get it? in the dem/lib mind all profit is evil and all profit is stolen from someone else. Liberals are fiscal idiots.

false! profit is not evil ..it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

Putting ones money at risk in the market is evil? please explain

Creating and selling a product that people want or need is evil? please explain

Building a house using your capital and spending 100 K and then selling it for 120K is evil? please explain.

it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

 

[daws101]

Just SAW GRAHAM'S declaration speech if he represents diversity ..then the word has no meaning

Now, now.......he's gay. Which candidate from the progressive party of diversity is gay?

that 's the point in the progressive party sexuality is irrelevant.
for the regressive party he and al the other "minorities" ARE THERE JUST TO further the myth of conservative acceptance ..

Oh bullshit! Just the opposite. If sexuality were irrelevant, why would the Dems work so hard at election time point out that they are the friends of gays, blacks, females, Hispanics, etc? What someone is is how Democrats identify people and market to them. Sexuality is key to Democrats.

way to rationalize!

Way to deny!

no denial here .

 

[daws101]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

It is extremely unlikely that O'Malley will get the nomination. See for example this analysis.

We'll see. But regardless, the GOP needs to go with a Rubio/Fiorina Ticket. Anything other than that, will be perceived as just throwing more angry old greedy white dudes at us. They should take my advice and go with Rubio/Fiorina. Otherwise, they have no chance.

oh shit! paulie's here another perfectly good thread ruined .

 

[kwc57]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

Outside of Maryland, few people have any idea who he is.

They didn't know anything about the foreigner Communist from Kenya either. The Republicans are in a real pickle. They can't shake that angry fat greedy old white dude image. The Democrats should have no problem hanging on to the White House.

You've gone full retard. How can you not shake the image when half your candidates are as diverse as the Democrat rainbow coalition? Of course, the media will ignore it and spread the same meme you are, but when has the media dealt in reality?

 

[Redfish]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

Outside of Maryland, few people have any idea who he is.

They didn't know anything about the foreigner Communist from Kenya either. The Republicans are in a real pickle. They can't shake that angry fat greedy old white dude image. The Democrats should have no problem hanging on to the White House.

wrong on all counts (except about the kenyan)

 

[daws101]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

Outside of Maryland, few people have any idea who he is.

They didn't know anything about the foreigner Communist from Kenya either. The Republicans are in a real pickle. They can't shake that angry fat greedy old white dude image. The Democrats should have no problem hanging on to the White House.

You've gone full retard. How can you not shake the image when half your candidates are as diverse as the Democrat rainbow coalition? Of course, the media will ignore it and spread the same meme you are, but when has the media dealt in reality?

don't say I didn't warn you.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Walker/Paul will take 55, maybe 56 states

 

[Redfish]

so you profited from misery ....how conservative !

This seems extremely unfair. Buying when a market is low is a perfectly normal and useful thing. Moreover, it is necessary for markets to function: First, if no one buys then then prices will drop even further and the people who are selling because they need to sell won't get the money they need. Second, if no one starts buying when the prices are low, the prices don't recover. Don't blame or criticize people for engaging in basic financial transactions.

don't you get it? in the dem/lib mind all profit is evil and all profit is stolen from someone else. Liberals are fiscal idiots.

false! profit is not evil ..it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

Putting ones money at risk in the market is evil? please explain

Creating and selling a product that people want or need is evil? please explain

Building a house using your capital and spending 100 K and then selling it for 120K is evil? please explain.

it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

ok, tell us. which profits are evil and which are ok

 

[daws101]

This seems extremely unfair. Buying when a market is low is a perfectly normal and useful thing. Moreover, it is necessary for markets to function: First, if no one buys then then prices will drop even further and the people who are selling because they need to sell won't get the money they need. Second, if no one starts buying when the prices are low, the prices don't recover. Don't blame or criticize people for engaging in basic financial transactions.

don't you get it? in the dem/lib mind all profit is evil and all profit is stolen from someone else. Liberals are fiscal idiots.

false! profit is not evil ..it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

Putting ones money at risk in the market is evil? please explain

Creating and selling a product that people want or need is evil? please explain

Building a house using your capital and spending 100 K and then selling it for 120K is evil? please explain.

it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

ok, tell us. which profits are evil and which are ok

asked and answered it's the way you make that makes that distinction.
you don't know the difference or don't care?

 

[Redfish]

don't you get it? in the dem/lib mind all profit is evil and all profit is stolen from someone else. Liberals are fiscal idiots.

false! profit is not evil ..it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

Putting ones money at risk in the market is evil? please explain

Creating and selling a product that people want or need is evil? please explain

Building a house using your capital and spending 100 K and then selling it for 120K is evil? please explain.

it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

ok, tell us. which profits are evil and which are ok

asked and answered it's the way you make that makes that distinction.
you don't know the difference or don't care?

no you have not answered it. so let me give you some choices of people who have made big profits, are they evil or good?

1. bill gates and microsoft
2. steve jobs and apple
3. henry ford
4. jonas salk
5. the clintons
6. GE
7, the UAW
8. Trump
9. Oprah
10. Big Pharma
11. drug cartels
12. Tom Brady
13. Madoff
14. Pelosi
15. Obama
16. Simon Crowel
17. Queen Elizabeth
18. Thomas Edison
19 Alexander Graham Bell
20. IBM

 

[daws101]

false! profit is not evil ..it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

Putting ones money at risk in the market is evil? please explain

Creating and selling a product that people want or need is evil? please explain

Building a house using your capital and spending 100 K and then selling it for 120K is evil? please explain.

it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

ok, tell us. which profits are evil and which are ok

asked and answered it's the way you make that makes that distinction.
you don't know the difference or don't care?

no you have not answered it. so let me give you some choices of people who have made big profits, are they evil or good?

1. bill gates and microsoft
2. steve jobs and apple
3. henry ford
4. jonas salk
5. the clintons
6. GE
7, the UAW
8. Trump
9. Oprah
10. Big Pharma
11. drug cartels
12. Tom Brady
13. Madoff
14. Pelosi
15. Obama
16. Simon Crowel
17. Queen Elizabeth
18. Thomas Edison
19 Alexander Graham Bell
20. IBM

'I've giving you my answer but I'll play

Henry Ford was a racist, unionbusting, Hitler-loving slavedriver who built a vast empire around the mass-production of automobiles. But since the company he founded became such a powerhouse, people rationalize his misdeeds in order to maintain the fiction that he was some manner of American hero.

Thomas Edison Edison is known for the most stolen patents in history. He did work the direct current motor but it caused a lot of problem. People got electrocuted and there were many fires caused by that. Tesla fixed the problem but Edison did not pay sum offered.

 

[Redfish]

Putting ones money at risk in the market is evil? please explain

Creating and selling a product that people want or need is evil? please explain

Building a house using your capital and spending 100 K and then selling it for 120K is evil? please explain.

it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

ok, tell us. which profits are evil and which are ok

asked and answered it's the way you make that makes that distinction.
you don't know the difference or don't care?

no you have not answered it. so let me give you some choices of people who have made big profits, are they evil or good?

1. bill gates and microsoft
2. steve jobs and apple
3. henry ford
4. jonas salk
5. the clintons
6. GE
7, the UAW
8. Trump
9. Oprah
10. Big Pharma
11. drug cartels
12. Tom Brady
13. Madoff
14. Pelosi
15. Obama
16. Simon Crowel
17. Queen Elizabeth
18. Thomas Edison
19 Alexander Graham Bell
20. IBM

'I've giving you my answer but I'll play

Henry Ford was a racist, unionbusting, Hitler-loving slavedriver who built a vast empire around the mass-production of automobiles. But since the company he founded became such a powerhouse, people rationalize his misdeeds in order to maintain the fiction that he was some manner of American hero.

Thomas Edison Edison is known for the most stolen patents in history. He did work the direct current motor but it caused a lot of problem. People got electrocuted and there were many fires caused by that. Tesla fixed the problem but Edison did not pay sum offered.

OMG,, your view of history is very interesting. Very wrong, but interesting nevertheless.

 

[daws101]

it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

ok, tell us. which profits are evil and which are ok

asked and answered it's the way you make that makes that distinction.
you don't know the difference or don't care?

no you have not answered it. so let me give you some choices of people who have made big profits, are they evil or good?

1. bill gates and microsoft
2. steve jobs and apple
3. henry ford
4. jonas salk
5. the clintons
6. GE
7, the UAW
8. Trump
9. Oprah
10. Big Pharma
11. drug cartels
12. Tom Brady
13. Madoff
14. Pelosi
15. Obama
16. Simon Crowel
17. Queen Elizabeth
18. Thomas Edison
19 Alexander Graham Bell
20. IBM

'I've giving you my answer but I'll play

Henry Ford was a racist, unionbusting, Hitler-loving slavedriver who built a vast empire around the mass-production of automobiles. But since the company he founded became such a powerhouse, people rationalize his misdeeds in order to maintain the fiction that he was some manner of American hero.

Thomas Edison Edison is known for the most stolen patents in history. He did work the direct current motor but it caused a lot of problem. People got electrocuted and there were many fires caused by that. Tesla fixed the problem but Edison did not pay sum offered.

OMG,, your view of history is very interesting. Very wrong, but interesting nevertheless.

wow a truly pathetic dodge I guess fact checking is out of the question?

 

[kwc57]

Now, now.......he's gay. Which candidate from the progressive party of diversity is gay?

that 's the point in the progressive party sexuality is irrelevant.
for the regressive party he and al the other "minorities" ARE THERE JUST TO further the myth of conservative acceptance ..

Oh bullshit! Just the opposite. If sexuality were irrelevant, why would the Dems work so hard at election time point out that they are the friends of gays, blacks, females, Hispanics, etc? What someone is is how Democrats identify people and market to them. Sexuality is key to Democrats.

way to rationalize!

Way to deny!

no denial here .

Wow, you're pathological. Who knew?

 

[daws101]

that 's the point in the progressive party sexuality is irrelevant.
for the regressive party he and al the other "minorities" ARE THERE JUST TO further the myth of conservative acceptance ..

Oh bullshit! Just the opposite. If sexuality were irrelevant, why would the Dems work so hard at election time point out that they are the friends of gays, blacks, females, Hispanics, etc? What someone is is how Democrats identify people and market to them. Sexuality is key to Democrats.

way to rationalize!

Way to deny!

no denial here .

Wow, you're pathological. Who knew?

way to rationalize

 

[Redfish]

ok, tell us. which profits are evil and which are ok

asked and answered it's the way you make that makes that distinction.
you don't know the difference or don't care?

no you have not answered it. so let me give you some choices of people who have made big profits, are they evil or good?

1. bill gates and microsoft
2. steve jobs and apple
3. henry ford
4. jonas salk
5. the clintons
6. GE
7, the UAW
8. Trump
9. Oprah
10. Big Pharma
11. drug cartels
12. Tom Brady
13. Madoff
14. Pelosi
15. Obama
16. Simon Crowel
17. Queen Elizabeth
18. Thomas Edison
19 Alexander Graham Bell
20. IBM

'I've giving you my answer but I'll play

Henry Ford was a racist, unionbusting, Hitler-loving slavedriver who built a vast empire around the mass-production of automobiles. But since the company he founded became such a powerhouse, people rationalize his misdeeds in order to maintain the fiction that he was some manner of American hero.

Thomas Edison Edison is known for the most stolen patents in history. He did work the direct current motor but it caused a lot of problem. People got electrocuted and there were many fires caused by that. Tesla fixed the problem but Edison did not pay sum offered.

OMG,, your view of history is very interesting. Very wrong, but interesting nevertheless.

wow a truly pathetic dodge I guess fact checking is out of the question?

You said Ford was a racist and Edison stole patents. There is no historical evidence of either. For the record, by today's standards almost everyone in the early 1900s was a racist, including FDR.

 

[daws101]

asked and answered it's the way you make that makes that distinction.
you don't know the difference or don't care?

no you have not answered it. so let me give you some choices of people who have made big profits, are they evil or good?

1. bill gates and microsoft
2. steve jobs and apple
3. henry ford
4. jonas salk
5. the clintons
6. GE
7, the UAW
8. Trump
9. Oprah
10. Big Pharma
11. drug cartels
12. Tom Brady
13. Madoff
14. Pelosi
15. Obama
16. Simon Crowel
17. Queen Elizabeth
18. Thomas Edison
19 Alexander Graham Bell
20. IBM

'I've giving you my answer but I'll play

Henry Ford was a racist, unionbusting, Hitler-loving slavedriver who built a vast empire around the mass-production of automobiles. But since the company he founded became such a powerhouse, people rationalize his misdeeds in order to maintain the fiction that he was some manner of American hero.

Thomas Edison Edison is known for the most stolen patents in history. He did work the direct current motor but it caused a lot of problem. People got electrocuted and there were many fires caused by that. Tesla fixed the problem but Edison did not pay sum offered.

OMG,, your view of history is very interesting. Very wrong, but interesting nevertheless.

wow a truly pathetic dodge I guess fact checking is out of the question?

You said Ford was a racist and Edison stole patents. There is no historical evidence of either. For the record, by today's standards almost everyone in the early 1900s was a racist, including FDR.

the first part of that is complete bullshit the rest is rationalization of bullshit.

10 Great Business Ideas That Were Actually Stolen
Follow

Image Source

The recent Samsung versus Apple lawsuits show that technology and patent theft is still a contentious issue in the world of commerce. We say “still” because, throughout modern history, many money-spinning business ideas have been incorrectly credited to the wrong people.

From the steam engine to television, there have been numerous cases where an inventor’s groundbreaking technical work has been taken advantage of underhandedly. The result? The financial rewards being reaped by somebody else and the historical prestige getting piled on another’s plate.

Read on for 10 brilliant business ideas whose origins may not lie quite where you thought they did.

10. Radio – Marconi vs. Tesla

Image Source

In the 1890s, Nikola Tesla discovered that he could use his electrically charged “Tesla coils” to transmit messages over long distances by setting them to resonate at the same frequency. Tesla’s patent for this design was accepted in 1900.

At the same time, a young inventor named Marconi was working on his own device for transmitting signals over long distances; however, the Italian’s patents were repeatedly turned down due to the priority of previous inventors.

Undeterred, Marconi experimented with technologies like the Tesla Oscillator to transmit messages over long distances. Tesla initially tolerated Marconi using his work. He is quoted as having said, “Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using seventeen of my patents.”

Yet this changed in 1904, when the US Patent Office decided to award credit for the invention to Marconi. A furious Tesla attempted to sue the Italian, but he didn’t have enough financial resources to successfully prosecute. Moreover, the patent was not restored to Tesla until after the inventor’s death in 1943.

9. Lasers – Gordon Gould vs. Arthur Schawlow & Charles Townes/the US Patent Office

Image Source

Gordon Gould was a graduate student at Columbia University when he developed the first practical method for creating a laser. Gould’s 1957 design used two mirrors as an optical resonator to create a coherent, focused beam of light. He also coined the acronym LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation).

Unfortunately, Gould wrongly believed that he needed to create a working model before he could patent the device. This resulted in him failing to stake a claim on his invention until 1959, by which time colleagues from the same laboratory had already filed patents for the laser.

Gould spent the next 30 years in legal battles with the US Patent Office and the corporations using his laser. After a long struggle, he won a victory over the companies using his technology in 1987. He was eventually issued a total of 48 patents and several million dollars in royalties.

8. The Steamboat – John Fitch vs. Robert Fulton and the Steam Boat Industry

Image Source

One of the most immediately apparent uses of the steam engine was to increase the speed of water transportation. So it was that, in 1787, on the Delaware River, ex-soldier John Fitch launched the first ever steam-powered boat, which was backed up by banks of oars on each side.

Unfortunately for Fitch, the patent he was granted in 1791 did not give him a monopoly, which left the way clear for later inventors to create similar designs. This meant that inventor Robert Fulton was able to patent a financially viable and profitable paddle steamer in 1807, without needing to pay the deceased Fitch’s estate a penny.

The legal struggles of steamboat builders were partly responsible for the Patent Act of 1790 being passed. This law laid down much more comprehensive procedures for claiming ownership of an invention in America.

7. The Telephone – Alexander Graham Bell vs. Elisha Gray

Image Source

Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray both invented the telephone in 1876, but controversy still remains surrounding who succeeded first.

The two inventors were racing to create a device that could transmit intelligible sounds from place to place. On February 14, 1876, Gray submitted a patent to the US Patent Office. Yet on the same day, Bell’s lawyer submitted a full patent application with a very similar diagram.

There is evidence that a patent officer was bribed to give Bell the details of Gray’s invention and that this formed the basis of his harmonic transmitter, which he used to send the world’s first phone call.

Although Bell later took the development of the telephone in other directions for commercial use, there is strong evidence that the crucial first step was supplied to him by Gray’s work.

6. The Moving Picture – Francis Jenkins vs. Thomas Edison

Image Source

The video projector is commonly attributed to Thomas Edison, but, like many inventions, it was actually based on the work of earlier designers. Although Edison had developed a projector called the Kinetoscope, its images were blurry and hard to make out.

However, in the early 1890s, inventor Francis Jenkins developed an improved machine called the Phantoscope. This machine displayed images clearly for a short period of time.

Yet the eventual fate of the moving picture proved sketchy, and it shows just how important it is to trust and really know your business partner. Jenkins worked on the modified Phantoscope with Thomas Armat, and soon they both claimed recognition for the invention.

After the split, Armat went on to work for Thomas Edison, and from the Phantoscope they developed the “Edison Vitascope.” Perhaps, though, without the wrangling between Jenkins and Armat, the name synonymous with motion pictures would have been different.

5. Intermittent Windshield Wipers – Robert Kearns vs. Ford and Chrysler

Image Source

Incredibly, this case features a design stolen by three different companies simultaneously. In 1964, Robert Kearns invented the intermittent windscreen wiper, which cleaned the glass every few seconds rather than continuously, providing the driver with better visibility.

Kearns took his design to the “big three” automobile companies: Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. All three refused to use the invention under license, yet they later began offering intermittent windscreen wipers as optional equipment in their cars.

An outraged Kearns sued Ford in 1978 and Chrysler in 1982, eventually winning almost $30 million in compensation. He said: “I don’t think the goal was the magnitude of the money. What I saw [as] my role was to defend the patent system. If I don’t go further, there really isn’t a patent system.”

4. Graphical User Interface – Apple vs. Xerox

Image Source

The graphical user interface (GUI) was essential in the creation of easy and intuitive personal computing, but the history of this breakthrough idea is murky. Xerox developed the first fully functional version in 1981, yet the technology quickly found its way to competitors Apple.

It is often said that Steve Jobs “stole” the idea for the GUI from Xerox after various visits to the company in the 1980s. This is not quite true. Xerox was provided with a healthy share of Apple stock in exchange for engineer visits.

Even so, the first Apple Macintosh did incorporate a number of the features of the Xerox PARC, and Apple did hire some of the best Xerox engineers to work on their prototype machines.

A lawsuit by Xerox against Apple was eventually thrown out of court around the same time as the Apple versus Microsoft suit, because the presiding judge felt that the complaints were inappropriate. Still, ultimately the GUI was the beginning of a business goldmine for Steve Jobs and Apple.

3. Television – Philo Farnsworth vs. Vladimir Zworykin and RCA

Image Source

Philo Taylor Farnsworth was a brilliant American inventor who claimed to have 165 patents to his name. Before he even turned 15, he had begun developing the image dissector, a piece of technology that would make modern television possible. And in 1927, at the age of 21, Farnsworth put together the first working version.

However, in 1930, Vladimir Zworykin, who was a scientist for electronics company RCA, visited Farnsworth’s lab. Zworykin had developed a similar model in 1923, but a patent was not granted until 1938, after he had made substantial alterations to the original design.

A decade-long patent battle ensued over priority of the invention, with RCA losing both the initial court case and the appeal in 1936. However, although Farnsworth won the court case, in many history books, Zworykin is still recorded as the inventor of television. While Farnsworth received royalties from RCA for his patents, he never gained the wealth or recognition that he deserved.

2. The Sewing Machine – Elias Howe vs. Isaac Singer

Image Source

The sewing machine is commonly associated with Isaac Singer and the Singer Corporation. However, inventor Elias Howe originally patented the design in 1846.

In 1849, Howe sued Isaac Singer for taking his idea, and the resulting litigation dragged on for several years. It was eventually settled by a compromise, with both parties forming a patent pool for their companies and Howe receiving royalties from future sales of his device.

Ironically, the first sewing machine came from an even earlier inventor. Walter Hunt created a sewing machine with a needle eye in 1834, but he decided not to patent it because he thought it would lead to unemployment.

1. Monopoly – Clarence B. Darrow vs. Lizzie Magie

Image Source

Monopoly has a long and checkered history. A Quaker named Lizzie Magie created the game in 1903. At the time, it was named “The Landlord’s Game,” and it was designed to teach people about the unfairness of land ownership.

Over the next 30 years, the game became popular with college students, Quakers, and socialists. The original name was eventually dropped and the board game became known as Monopoly.

In the 1930s, an unemployed heater salesman named Clarence B. Darrow saw the business potential of Monopoly and patented it. After successfully selling homemade versions of the game, he managed to sell the idea to toy company, Parker Brothers.

In an ironic twist, in the 1970s, the owners of Parker Brothers, General Mills, sued an economics professor for marketing a parody game called Anti-Monopoly. The suit was rejected on appeal when it was realized that the original game of Monopoly was, in fact, stolen.

Follow

November 10, 2012 By Chris Barker
Filed Under: Uncategorized

10 Great Business Ideas That Were Actually Stolen Business Careers Guide

 

[daws101]

5 Famous Inventors (Who Stole Their Big Idea)
By Daniel O'Brien March 28, 2008 1,355,673 views

• 
  
• It has become clear that it's up to the Cracked staff to re-educate America. See, we slept through high school, so we were lucky. We avoided the years and years of brainwashing that accompanies a standard education.
  
  To those of you unfortunate enough to have been subjected to a lifetime in the public school system, we've got some bad news for you that you probably won't find in your text books: Every brilliant inventor you've ever loved is a huge, thieving asshole.
  
  #5. Galileo Galilee
  
  
  
  
  Galileo Galilee or "Gal-Gal," as he is more commonly known, was an Italian astronomer, physicist and mathematician. If you asked the average high schooler what Galileo's lasting contribution to science was, they would most likely reply "the telescope" before going off to listen to their Rhianna records and play with their Digimon, (Is that what high schoolers do these days? We don't even know anymore). Well, put down that Digital Monster, high schooler, because we are about to blow your mind: Gal-Gal did not invent the telescope. Also, Rhianna sucks.
  
  Who Actually Invented It?
  While everyone was probably looking up at the stars, no one was doing it quite as hard as Dutchman Hans Lippershey. In 1608, Lippershey completed the first ever telescope and attempted to receive a patent for it, but was denied for no discernible reason.
  
  
  
  
  Lippershey's telescope (internet re-creation)
  
  A few countries over, when Galileo heard about Lippershey's work, he quickly built his own telescope in 1609. A telescope, it should be noted, that could see just a little bit further than Lippershey's.
  
  Necessary? Not particularly. Emasculating? Oh, you betcha. While Galileo never registered a patent for his telescope, the fact remains that his name is synonymous with the telescope, while Lippershey was most likely absent from your old textbooks.
  
  In a final shot to show just how fairly each scientist was rewarded, four moons surrounding Jupiter are named after Galileo, and do you know what carries Lippershey's name? A crater. A fucking crater on Earth's moon will forever be known as Lippershey's Crater. The Moon's Ass Crack.
  
  #4. Alexander Fleming
  
  
  
  
  Sir Alexander Fleming is the name people think of when penicillin is brought up. There's even a charming little story that goes along with it. According to the legend, Fleming's father saved a little boy from drowning in Scotland, and the father of this boy vowed to fund the young Fleming's education to repay the kindness. Eventually, Fleming graduates med school and discovers the healing nature of penicillin which eventually saves Winston Churchill's life when he is stricken with pneumonia. And who was the little boy that Fleming's father saved in the first place? Winston motherfucking Churchill.
  
  This would all be very cozy, if it wasn't for the fact that it's total horseshit on several counts. For one, Churchill wasn't treated with penicillin and, for another, Fleming wasn't the guy who discovered it. He was just some asshole.
  
  
  
  
  Fuck you
  
  Who Actually Discovered It?
  Difficult to say. North African tribesmen have been using penicillin for thousands of years. Also, in 1897, Ernest Duchesne used the mold penicillum glaucoma to cure typhoid in guinea pigs which, OK, was about the stupidest waste of time in the history of science, but proof that he understood the possibilities of penicillin all the same.
  
  Other scientists at the time didn't take him serious, due to his age and strange preoccupation with guinea pigs, so he never received a patent for his work. He died about 10 years later from a disease that would have been completely treatable with penicillin and he was survived by his healthy, yet totally indifferent guinea pigs.
  
  
  
  
  
  Even when Fleming did accidentally discover penicillin years later, he didn't think it could actually be used to help anyone, so he stopped working on it and moved on. Meanwhile, a few other scientists, Howard Florey, Norman Heatley, Andrew Moyer and Ernst Chain started working on penicillin and eventually mastered penicillin as well as figured out a way to mass produce it.
  
  So even though Fleming wasn't the first person to discover penicillin, and even though he didn't actually believe penicillin was in any way useful, he will forever go down in history as a penicillin-inventing, Winston-Churchill-saving genius.
  
  #3. Alexander Graham Bell
  
  
  
  
  Ah, Bell. The man behind the telephone and a good guy all around. Bell spent a whole lot of time working with deaf people. His wife was deaf, his mother was deaf and he was even Helen Keller's favorite teacher. With this time-consuming near-obsession with deaf people, it's amazing that Bell found time to invent the telephone. Wait, not "amazing." "Impossible." That's the one.
  
  Who Actually Invented It?
  In 1860, an Italian named Antonio Meucci first demonstrated his working telephone, (though he called it the "teletrofono," mostly because Italians are wacky). Eleven years later, (still five years before Bell's phone came out), he filed a temporary patent on his invention. In 1874, Meucci failed to send in the $10 necessary to renew his patent, because he was sick and poor and Italian.
  
  Two years after that, Bell registered his telephone patent. Meucci attempted to sue, of course, by retrieving the original sketches and plans he sent to a lab at Western Union, but these records, quite amazingly, disappeared. Where was Bell working at this time? Why, the very same Western Union lab where Meucci swore he sent his original sketches. Eventually, Meucci died penniless and faded away into obscurity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Did Bell, given his convenient position at Western Union, destroy Meucci's records and claim the telephone as his own invention? It's difficult to say. One source says "Yes, definitely," while others just say "probably." It makes sense, if you look at the facts: Bell already had a number of important inventions under his belt; it isn't unreasonable to assume he just got greedy and didn't want to see anyone else succeed. Further, why would Bell even need a phone? Both his wife and mother were deaf. Who the hell was he gonna call?
  
  #2. Albert Einstein
  
  
  
  
  According to all of your science books and that one episode of Animaniacs, Albert Einstein, Time Magazine's Man of the Century, invented the theory of relativity. Certainly, when you hear the name Einstein, you undoubtedly will think "He discovered relativity" or "He came up with that E=mc2 equation" or "He was a total sex maniac." Only one of those things is true. (It's the sex maniac part.)
  
  Who Actually Invented It?
  Henri Poincaré, mostly. Poincaré was the foremost expert on relativity in the late 19th century and was most likely the first person to formally present the theory of relativity. If you were Einstein and you wanted to write about relativity, you might consider meeting with the foremost expert on relativity, yes? If you answered "yes" to that question, then you're not Einstein at all.
  
  According to Einstein's famous On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, which contains his theories on relativity, Poincaré, despite publishing 30 books and over 500 papers, is not worth mentioning. It's true, pick up Einstein's paper if you don't believe us, (you won't): Poincaré doesn't receive a single reference, unless you consider plagiarism to be some kind of indirect reference. As a matter of fact, Einstein does not reference, footnote or cite a single goddamn source in his entire paper.
  
  Really? Not one source? Even we cite sources, Albert, and we're friggin' Cracked. What the hell?
  
  
  
  
  Einstein, photographed with God
  
  We don't want to jump to any conclusions here. Maybe Einstein's paper didn't contain any sources because he genuinely didn't read any other current physics texts or papers. Maybe he was seriously that smart. According to Peter Galison's Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's Maps: Empires of Time, Einstein and a small group of his fellow nerdlings formed a group called The Olympia Academy and would regularly gather to discuss their own works as well as the works of current scientists. The book goes on to specifically mention how Poincaré was one of the scientists that Einstein and his battalion of nerds would discuss.
  
  Shoots that whole "maybe Einstein didn't read any other papers" theory right to shit, doesn't it? It's interesting that Einstein sat studying and discussing the work of Poincaré for years, published a book that featured a theory that was startlingly similar to Poincaré's, and then didn't reference Poincaré once in the entire book. Wait, that isn't interesting? It's plagiarism. It's total bullshit plagiarism. Good luck sexing your way out of this one, Einstein.
  
  
  
  
  Einstein in 1951 (age 72)
  
  #1. Thomas Edison
  
  
  
  
  Thomas Edison. The "Wizard of Menlo Park." Described as one of the "world's most prolific inventors" with a record-breaking 1,093 patents to his name. You know, a guy could round up and kidnap a buttload of children and keep them forever, but would you call that guy the "world's most prolific father?" No, of course not. A "soulless monster," maybe. A "skilled thief," if you're being generous. Perhaps even the "King of Pop." But you wouldn't call that guy "the world's most prolific father," because those aren't his kids. He stole them. Such is the case with Thomas Edison.
  
  Sure, Cracked's staunchly anti-Thomas Edison stance is already fairly well documented, but we're afraid one article detailing what a prick this prick was just isn't enough. Edison is still celebrated in schools across the country for inventing the light bulb, the motion picture, electricity and a shit-ton of other important crap he had very little to do with.
  
  
  
  
  Edison's only original invention, the "Face Vacuum."
  
  Since there literally isn't enough space on the internet to cover all of the inventions that Edison didn't invent, we're just going to focus on the light bulb today.
  
  Who Actually Invented It?
  Everyone else. We all know how Edison exploited and took advantage of the poor, but brilliant Nikola Tesla, but who else did Edison step on? Sit back.
  
  Plenty of people messed around with the idea of the light bulb, (Jean Foucault, Humphrey Davy, J.W. Starr, some other guys you'll never read about in a history text book), but Heinrich Goebel was likely the first person to have actually invented it, back in 1854. He tried selling it to Edison, who saw no practical use in Goebel's invention and refused. Shortly thereafter, Goebel died and, shortly after that, Edison bought Goebel's patent, (you know, the one he saw no merit in), off of Goebel's impoverished widow at a cost much lower than what it was worth.
  
  
  
  
  One of nine light bulbs Edison accidentally got wedged in his anus during its development
  
  Screwing over just one inventor might be alright for Galileo, but Edison was a dreamer and he couldn't be satisfied with just one, dead disgraced inventor under his belt. So, after Goebel, and a year before Edison "invented" his light bulb, Joseph Wilson Swan developed and patented a working light bulb. When it was clear Edison's "Fuck Swan" defense wouldn't hold up in court, he made Swan a partner, forming the Ediswan United Company and effectively buying Swan and his patent.
  
  Soon enough, Edison acquired even more power and bought out Swan completely leaving all records of the light bulb under the care of the Edison Company. Sure, Swan had money, but in buying all of the records, Edison could take sole credit for the light bulb. So, he's got a laundry list of inventors he's either stepped on, bullied, exploited or bought out to his name, but what do they say about Edison in the textbooks? Father of the fucking light bulb.
  
  If you liked that, you'll probably enjoy Dan's look at The 5 Most Badass Presidents of All Time. Or, head over to the blog and read his musings on why Boondock Saints doesn't need a sequel. For a look at some more modern douchebags, watch Cracked.com's Week In Douchebaggery.
  
  
  .5 Famous Inventors Who Stole Their Big Idea Cracked.com