Exactly, but as there are some solutions, then we can factor in the fact that peak power demand is usually in the daytime at about 30% more power demanded at noon compared to the low at about three in the morning. Though most (probably all) alternative sources are best when they work in tandem, for example there is likely to be more wind when there is less sun and the other way around.

At that point (>10%) the wind power generators should be spread over a very large area, reducing the probability that the entire installed base of generators will generate a low output at the same time. There are also other things to consider such as the likelihood that calm days will be sunnier days (not always, but often) therefore somewhat increasing the output from solar power. Combined with a smart grid and other sources of electricity such as nuclear and gas and tidal power there you have a recipe for a coal-free future.

There is also the ability to use pumped/stored hydropower combined with wind power to respond to peak demand or a short time when all other sources of at a low.

The license (PDF) says on page four:

The first term of the License runs through 2010, but the License will be renewable for successive five-year periods for the life of any Portfolio patent on reasonable terms and conditions which may take into account prevailing market conditions, changes in technological environment and available commercial products at the time, but for the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal.

$0.12*10000 = $1200. Still expensive though.

You are confused about the meaning of Industry Standard. An industry standard is not "something very common", an industry standard is something adhering to a very specific set of rules as specified by a Standards Body such as W3C, VESA, CEN or WSC. While Flash is not an industry standard.

Now, from what I can tell, the first part of that story is true – Google and many others have figured out ways to get around Apple’s default settings on Safari in iOS – the only browser that comes with iOS, a browser that, in my experience, has never asked me what kind of privacy settings I wanted, nor did it ask if I wanted to share my data with anyone else (I do, it turns out, for any number of perfectly good reasons). Apple assumes that I agree with Apple’s point of view on “privacy,” which, I must say, is ridiculous on its face, because the idea of a large corporation (Apple is the largest, in fact) determining in advance what I might want to do with my data is pretty much the opposite of “privacy.”

Then again, Apple decided I hated Flash, too, so I shouldn’t be that surprised, right?

[...]

I don’t know, but when I bought an iPhone, I didn’t think I was singing up as an active recruit in Apple’s war on the open web. I just thought I was getting “the Internet in my pocket” – which was Apple’s initial marketing pitch for the device. What I didn’t realize was that it was “the Internet, as Apple wishes to understand it, in my pocket.”

Does not make any sense to me. First the author claim that Apple should have actively asked him do define the security settings and because it did not Apple is somehow evil. No operating system ever can actively ask their users to set up everything to a microscopic level, there has to be a default somewhere. It would take days to get through all the settings on my computer. I would say "fuck this" after fifteen minutes of configuring panels where I left almost everything set to the default anyway.

How could Apple agree with your stance on privacy unless you tell Apple your privacy wishes? The author seems to be well versed in computers and smartphones, I am sure he could figure out how to tell Apple how his privacy should be managed.

Then he somehow thinks Flash is an industry standard. This is what Apple allows to run in mobile Safari and disallowing non-standard (arguably proprietary) third party extensions is not really how you stymie industry-standard practices.

I agree that that would have been a problem for Apple, however, due to exhaustion because Qualcomm paid Motorola for the chips used by Apple the license was already paid. Then Motorola re-negotiated their bilateral license with Qualcomm and now Motorola wants money from Apple for the time that Qualcomm had already paid, thus trying to get money twice plus some extra.

Me neither, but this link (found in other comments on this article) claims Motorola repeatedly declined payment from Apple.

It would be impossible at even 0.1% since there are 2987 patents in 1729 families. 2.25% will never fly, especially for a single patent (probably a patent family actually). An average licensing cost of 0.01% per family would be 17.29% of the cost of the device. There is no way 2.25% can be considered FRAND.

Well... It's sometimes hard to pay what one should when:

source

I'll take some number from my butt (definitions of my butt may vary, but in this context it is random site on internet).

1.186 billion mobile broadband subscribers.
Let's say that half of these are on a 3G chip that somehow requires the Motorola 3G license: 593 million.
If these devices sell for an average of $20 we would have 11,86 billion in sales for these devices.
If Motorola wants 2.25% of the sales of these devices that would mean $297 million, a very significant number considering it is a single patent of a large portfolio of 1729 patents (yes, one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine).

Imagine if each of these patents would warrant an average licensing cost of 0.1% rather than the 2.25% that Motorola wants, then we would look at a licensing cost of more than the sales price to license 3G technology for the device. 2.25% does not smell FRAND to me, but I am no patent lawyer, I only pretend I know stuff on the internet.