By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review. 

By Graphisoft, Special for US Daily Review.

Commissioned by GRAPHISOFT Founder and Chairman of the Board, Gabor Bojar, the statue is the first in the world honoring the late founder of Apple, who passed away on October 5.  Crafted by Hungarian sculptorErno Toth, the life-like bronze statue stands near the entrance of architectural software maker GRAPHISOFT’s Budapest headquarters.

The relationship between GRAPHISOFT and Apple can be traced to the 1980′s, when Jobs came across the first version of GRAPHISOFT’s ArchiCAD software at the 1984 CeBIT in Germany.  His first impressions of the software led him to throw Apple’s support behind the development and distribution of ArchiCAD.  “Apple’s support included cash and computers at a time when GRAPHISOFT was a small company with limited resources, working within the economic and political confines of what was, at the time, communist Hungary,” Gabor Bojar said.  Apple also introduced GRAPHISOFT to its worldwide distribution network, which remains a cornerstone of the business today.  “With its attention to excellence in every detail, Graphisoft Park’s environment embodies the spirit of Steve Jobs,” Viktor Varkonyi, CEO of GRAPHISOFT said.  “I can’t think of a better place to commemorate the man and his legacy,” he continued.

About GRAPHISOFT
GRAPHISOFT® ignited the BIM revolution with ArchiCAD®, the industry first BIM software for architects. GRAPHISOFT continues to lead the industry with innovative solutions such as the revolutionary GRAPHISOFT BIM Server™, the world’s first real-time BIM collaboration environment, and the GRAPHISOFT EcoDesigner™, the world’s first fully-integrated building energy modeling application. GRAPHISOFT’s innovative solutions have fundamentally changed the way architects around the world design and collaborate.  GRAPHISOFT has been a part of the Nemetschek Group since its acquisition in 2007.

About Graphisoft Park
Graphisoft Park is the first science/technology park in Budapest, established by GRAPHISOFT in 1997 when looking for new premises. GRAPHISOFT believed that providing the world’s best architects with the world’s best software would be possible only if the company itself could operate in a first-class architectural environment.  Within a few years, several other high-tech firms rented space at the Park, attracted by its unmatched location, exceptional design, and superior services.  In addition to GRAPHISOFT, tenants include SAP, Microsoft, Servier, Canon, and over 40 other high-tech companies. The mission of the Park is to enable its tenants to attract the best talent with an inspiring calm and green environment, located directly on the banks of the Danube River. Graphisoft Park SE is a public European corporation listed on the Budapest Stock Exchange.  

About AIT-Budapest
Aquincum Institute of Technology was established in 2007 by Hungarian software entrepreneur, Gabor Bojar, founder of GRAPHISOFT, to provide an exceptional study abroad experience to North American undergraduates majoring in Computer Science and Engineering. AIT’s mission is to bridge the gap between academia and business. AIT’s curriculum integrates design, entrepreneurship, foundational courses and advanced applications in computer science and humanities courses related to Hungary’s rich cultural heritage.  AIT brings together globally-acclaimed scholars, designers, and entrepreneurs to provide an inspiring academic environment.

By William Bell, Contributor to US Daily Review.

I remember the first time I saw Liz Warren on Television. It was a little freaky for me. The last time that I saw or heard from her was in law school. She taught contract law at UH Law School and I was in her class. But the Liz Warren that I saw on television was not the same person who taught me contract law. She looked the same, but the words were from another planet.

The Liz Warren I knew understood that laws needed to be equitable in order to work. She taught me that inequitable laws, even those with good intentions, created more inequities. To illustrate this, she taught us that laws that were designed to protect people often end up hurting them more than they helped them. The law is full of examples. Long ago in Texas, we had a law that a married woman could not convey title to real estate unless she was taken aside (away from her husband) and privately asked whether she agreed with the sale. The Texas legislature was afraid that husbands might trick their wives into giving up the community property rights that were theirs under Texas law. Their goal was noble. They wanted to protect her. But in the end, the law made it difficult for married women to engage in real estate transactions. In the end, they were probably hurt more than they were helped. And this is the effect of laws that single out a class of people for the purpose of protecting them!

Liz seems to have forgotten her own lesson: Inequitable laws don’t work. Instead, she is suggesting that it is good idea to tax a person or company more, because they are successful.[1]

Her argument sounds good, until you think about it. I guess that’s the problem. We aren’t supposed to think about it.

She argues that factory owners owe the rest of society a “chunk” of their wealth because they use public roads, hire publically educated workers, and are protected by public law enforcement and fire protection. To get to this conclusion, you need to do some large-scale mental gymnastics. You have to:

• Ignore the fact that many large businesses must re-train many of these workers because our public schools are more worried about social issues than in education.

• Ignore the fact that the cost of existing roads and infrastructure was underwritten based upon the then current tax structure.  This cost was included in the price of the land. In other words, the greedy factory owner has already paid for these services (in the price of the land or the existing tax system) without imposing additional taxes on them.

• Ignore the fact that the people who build these projects are generally required to pay additional fees in order to offset any other additional burdens that the project may place on the local infrastructure. Governments have become adept at arguing that these factories will produce a stress on local roads, utilities, police, fire, and education and that the developer must pay fees to offset this. In other words, the greedy factory owner has already been required to pay for these additional services (through these fees and future taxes under the current tax system).

• Forget the fact that factories ultimately increase the standard of living for all Americans. Without manufacturing, we would all be living at a tenant-farmer level. Even one factory that produces goods more economically raises the standard of living for the entire society. For example, if someone invented a way to move goods from A to B at half the present cost, everyone in the U.S. would see their standard of living rise.

• Forget that factories pay property taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes and other taxes that you have never heard of.

• Forget that the trucks and trains that haul the goods also pay taxes: taxes on profits, excise taxes, taxes on fuel used, vehicle registration and licensing fees.

• Forget that factories hire workers and pay them market wages for their labor and that these funds benefit the community.

• Forget that if it becomes too expensive to conduct business in the U.S., the businesses will move elsewhere . . . as many of them already have. We had a strong economy in this country because we created a favorable climate for business to develop. As a result, we all benefitted. If we kill it, we will all pay.

What is really crazy about her argument is that if you use her logic, then these poor factory workers should be paying some of their wages as additional taxes too. They were educated at public schools. They traveled to work on public roads. They were protected by the police that we all paid for. Using her logic, they should pay more tax too in order to account for all of the government benefits that they use to get to their jobs. I doubt if Ms. Warren is going to demand that the laborers pay up for all the “free” benefits that they received.

There is one other oops that she overlooked. If these greedy factory owners should pay because of all of the benefits that they are receiving, then why is it that local governments court them and want them to build their factory in their back yard?  Is it because the local governments are so flush that they enjoy giving away tax dollars to help millionaires? No. The local governments court these businesses because they expect to collect more tax revenues from the factory and from the jobs that will be produced. In other words, the mean old factory owners are already giving back to the community. Local governments want to build colleges and infrastructure in order to attract businesses. Instead of some vague notion of a social contract, she should be looking at reality. Businesses locate where they will have access to these services. On the flip side, local governments expect more revenue from the new factory than they expend. It is a real contract and both sides win.

It seems to me that the force of her argument flows from the unstated assumption that corporations are owned by rich, greedy millionaires who are using government benefits to make themselves even more rich.  I’m sure that her audience is picturing the factory owner as a fat, cigar smoking millionaire who squashes the little guys and eats children for breakfast. This makes it easier for her to justify the use of government force to steal his money. She certainly wasn’t thinking about corporations like Apple or its former CEO, Steve Jobs: “They’re different.”

Who is it that owns these factories anyway? Oddly enough, some of the stock in these companies is owned by these same little guys that she wants to protect. They may not own it directly, but in most cases they own it indirectly through their insurance companies, retirement plans or other vehicles. Hurting the shareholders hurts the very people that she wants to help.

I am not a defender of corporate America. I think that some people use corporations in order to avoid responsibility. But the answer is not to make the successful companies pay more. Instead, we need to hold corporations accountable for violations of the law. If a corporation commits theft or fraud or some other crime, then the leadership should go to jail.

One final point, I doubt if Ms. Warren would hold the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, to this same standard. If not, then how are we going to decide who we are going to pillage?

From the lofty towers of Harvard Law School, Liz tells us that we don’t have to worry about marauding bands who will steal everything. She’s right. By the time Obama and Co are finished, there won’t be enough left to steal.

By Isabella Woods, Special for US Daily Review

Inventors create different devices so is it fair for them to be judged against one another especially when they lived in different centuries?

Steve Jobs and Thomas Edison have both been in the limelight recently. Jobs, because he died and was an extremely high profile character in global electronics and Edison, because he invented throughout his working life.

Steve Jobs lived from 1955 to 2011 to the age of 56; Thomas Edison from 1847 to 1931 to the age of 84. The difference in era, finances, culture and population movement show that direct comparison on many levels clearly isn’t possible.

Many Similarities

However, if you study the manner in which the two worked, many similarities seem to emerge, especially when you think about their career paths.

Let’s get the not-so-nice comparisons out of the way. Both Jobs and Edison have been described as difficult and controlling bosses who wouldn’t accept standards below their own from an employee. They both kept an iron grip on all that happened in their work zones. Both spent an inordinate time protecting patents, even those they had no direct use or plans for.

An easy and now amusing contrast starts with Edison’s patent on making movies. Everyone making a movie had to pay Edison a specific amount. This compares well with Apple’s approach to chasing anyone to the extreme over patent litigation if there is the slightest chance a rival has a feature that Apple believes it had a hand in.

Keeping Your Light Bulb and iPhone, Sir?

Edison was the inventor of the light bulb. Although we may have changed to an energy saving model in recent years, we still can’t do without it. Some iPhone users would claim the same. Edison invented both the phonograph and the motion picture camera (hence his grip on people making movies) and is known for improving the telegraph and the telephone. Apple via Jobs has taken the tablet computer and changed it into one of the most useful pieces of equipment available for all ages. It defines how we communicate or it did until Amazon’s Kindle Fire arrived, but that’s another story.

All of Edison’s inventions or advancements came when human lifestyle was evolving quickly and he helped to move it along even faster. Jobs’ iPhone took a useful tool and made it the gadget to hold and use for anyone who could afford one. Apple’s Mac computers are accepted as better machines than anything running Windows, but other software has prevented Apple from completely taking over the computing world.

While Edison invented the phonograph, Jobs gave us the iPod and the iTouch. Could we have got to the latter if we hadn’t found the former? Is it Edison who was the real inventor and Jobs the man who took good ideas and made them almost perfect, creating objects we can’t put down or are not prepared to do without?

How Long Will The Memory Last?

Clearly, Edison invented useful tools that made everyday life so much easier. His ideas have become natural in the way we conduct our daily lives. In a hundred, or even two hundred years, we’ll still need some kind of electricity and electric light. Will the people of 3011 be updating software on their iPhone model number 88? Perhaps the iPhone will be developed in ways we can’t imagine now. In a thousand years’ time maybe people will look back at Steve Jobs’ era and say he innovated and changed the way people lived in 2011, and was the catalyst for the way people communicated in 3011. After all, Edison didn’t really think about HD television or electricity on the moon, but they result from his inventions.

Perhaps the best comparison of the two men is how they affected other people. In the final analysis most of the people that worked with them wanted to; most wanted to stay for life and wouldn’t consider hiring a moving company. Most wanted to be part of human evolution. They both produced items we can’t do without. Some will argue that we can live without electricity and iPhones, but try taking them away from their owners. That’s why the grey haired geniuses – another trait they shared – will both be in the history books of the future.

Isabella Woods is a professional writer for numerous websites and publications.

By US Daily Review Staff.

Steve Jobs (1955-2011), the inspirational founder of Apple, recently passed away and has been at the center of attention of magazines, newspapers, the Internet, and other media.  Unlike most major leaders who pass away and are noted in the publications of the industry they are most famous for, Jobs was treated as a major celebrity.  In fact, he is like royalty, maybe the Prince of Technology.

The company he founded noted that “Apple has lost a visionary and creative genius, and the world has lost an amazing human being,” Mr. Cook said in a letter to employees. We will honor his memory by dedicating ourselves to continuing the work he loved so much.”

The Wall Street Journal observed that “During his more than three-decade career, Mr. Jobs transformed Silicon Valley as he helped turn the once-sleepy expanse of fruit orchards into the technology industry’s innovation center. In addition to laying the groundwork for the industry alongside others like Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates, Mr. Jobs proved the appeal of well-designed products over the power of technology itself and transformed the way people interact with technology.”

People Magazine described Jobs as a “visionary” and he was “the wizard behind Apple who put the Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad into the hands of millions of religiously devoted consumers around the globe…”

The Economist Magazine devoted its recent cover to Jobs, projecting him as “the magician.”  They said this technology leader was “ahead of his time” and that “Computing’s early years were dominated by technical types. But his emphasis on design and ease of use gave him the edge later on. Elegance, simplicity and an understanding of other fields came to matter in a world in which computers are fashion items, carried by everyone, that can do almost anything.” 

But Jobs did not only understand the aesthetics of technology, but its utility also.  He knew that the best technology had to be intuitive and had to appeal to the largest common denominator of people. Although Windows’s Explorer passed the legal muster of being a unique technology of its own, there is little doubt that it was inspired by Apple’s technology.  This approach to accessing computers made it something that everyone could approach and largerly understand without significant training.

The UK Telegraph noted, “Steve Jobs was not “only” a computer engineer or a programmer, but he had a deep love and appreciation of the importance of design and the humanities when it came to making objects that real people had to use. Sir Christopher Wren’s epitaph at St Paul’s Cathedral was si momumentum requiris circumspice (if you seek his monument, look around you). Steve Jobs more than earned those same words to describe his legacy.”

In France, the Le Monde said “The co-founder of Apple changed the world. More than many big heads of state, his actions have changed the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world.”

They say that Thomas Edison died in a world that was significantly different than the one he was born in to.  This had much to do with Edison’s significant contributions to technology.  Clearly the same can be said in the passing of Steve Forbes.  His legacy will likely have an impact for decades to come.

The following is from ABC News:

Steve Jobs, the mastermind behind Apple‘s iPhone, iPad, iPod, iMac and iTunes, has died, Apple said. Jobs was 56.

“We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away today,” read a statement by Apple’s board of directors. “Steve’s brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve. His greatest love was for his wife, Laurene, and his family. Our hearts go out to them and to all who were touched by his extraordinary gifts.”

The homepage of Apple’s website this evening switched to a full-page image of Jobs with the text, “Steve Jobs 1955-2011.”

Clicking on the image revealed the additional text: “Apple has lost a visionary and creative genius, and the world has lost an amazing human being. those of us who have been fortunate enough to know and work with Steve have lost a dear friend and an inspiring mentor. Steve leaves behind a company that only he could have built, and his spirit will forever be the foundation of Apple.”

Jobs co-founded Apple Computer in 1976 and, with his childhood friend Steve Wozniak, marketed what was considered the world’s first personal computer, the Apple II.

Industry watchers called him a master innovator — perhaps on a par with…(read more)