4 ms·
We're bored, let's sue each other
- noonespecial 16y agoFascinating. The greater the innovator, the more inward pointing lines. Those that don't innovate at all have only outward pointing lines. Have we discovered a metric for judging a company's "value" to its host society? I propose a new tax. If you've got more outies than innies, you pay an extra tax to help improve the justice system.
- TeHCrAzY 16y agoThats quite daft. Google clearly does plenty of innovation, not to mention Microsoft. Much more likely is that Google/Microsoft have such large patent portfolios and plenty of spare cash that suing them would be suicidal at best for most companies.
- ggchappell 16y agoAs a graph theorist, my primary interest here is whether those crossing arrows are necessary. We can ignore the directions on the arrows, obviously. We could eliminate some crossings by moving ADC between Apple and LG. But the crossings involving the arrow from Oracle to Samsung are harder to get rid of ... [think, think, think] ... and, as it turns out, impossible to get rid of. To see this, begin by collapsing Nokia and Apple to a single node. Then Nokia-Apple, Kodak, and Sharp form a triangle, and Samsung is joined to each node in this triangle. Now collapse Rim, Motorola, Microsoft, Google, and Oracle to a single node. This new super-node is joined to all four of Nokia-Apple, Kodak, Sharp, and Samsung. Thus, we have a minor [1] isomorphic to a complete graph on 5 vertices. Conclusion: Considered as a graph, the diagram is not planar [2]. Crossings are unavoidable. Yes, I was bored, too. :-) P.S. Off-the-wall question: Are there any nontrivial graph-theoretic properties that such a graph might have, which also have nontrivial legal ramifications? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(graph_theory) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(graph_theory) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_graph