
We're bored, let's sue each other - gasull
http://codeflow.org/pictures/suesilly.png
======
ggchappell
As 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)>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_graph>

------
noonespecial
Fascinating. 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
Thats 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.

