I have to agree with Epic Fail.

If you're going to make music with machines, pay attention to the actual rhythm of the song. Just because you at some point played all the notes and they were sometimes on beat doesn't at all mean its good. The hardware version of Radiohead's Nude is WAY better and actually deserves a win.

I'll take one of those.

If this article was titled "More Available OLED Lighting" I would've been excited.

They may have been reporting on it, but it was to show everyone how crackpot these people were. The whole time they were saying that it doesn't work. They never came anywhere near believing Steorn's claims.

Are you people THAT thick? He DOES NOT think the device is producing more energy than put it. He says it right there in the video. He's trying to figure why they're getting wrong measurements, that's all. Steorn still believes they're actually producing more energy than is put in. There's a difference. Come on people, read what I'm writing.

Why though? This guy didn't say his device defied any existing laws. He said that through a chemical process induced by electricity they produced heat. So what? If they're wrong about being able to commercialize or it doesn't work, that will eventually be brought to light. If people are stupid enough to invest money into their project, that's their fault. I'm just saying, these guys seem to be very different from the folks over at Steorn.

Of course I'm not saying they should be taken extremely serious due to their history, but come on. You're bashing them a bit more than you should be.

I think you guys put a bit of a slant on this. He says that he doesn't think it violates existing laws of thermodynamics. He just says that he doesn't know WHY they're getting the measurements they do. This is a very different approach from Steorn who claims to be making more energy than is put in. I think you guys should seriously revise this article.

Tis sad when many posts must be accompanied by little explanations so people don't freak out.

"APPLE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR SALES!!!!!@$%%$^"

Well, look at it this way. If you were one of these companies what would you do? You have a simple and easy part of your products that people are claiming they own the rights to (that you most likely didn't know was patented). Do you immediately stop production and spend lots of money on finding a a different way to make your products, changing the production lines and everything? No, you ignore it and hope it goes away until someone like the ITC steps in and does something about it. Obviously there's way too much here that we don't know to really pass judgment on either party. I think there's a time in the tech world where if you've allowed something that you have patented to become so widely used by major companies, you should just let it be. I'm not saying that you're not rightfully entitled to some royalties (which should be a tiny tiny fraction per product sold in this situation being as the technology seems to be a very simple and small part of the product should you choose to seek out that compensation), but don't just be a dick about it.