On 2009-09-04, RayLopez99 <raylopez88@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 5:43Âpm, JEDIDIAH <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > The real world appears to support the findings of the simulation. Wherever
>> > strong protection of "intellectual property" is enforced, innovation slows
>> > down and cost goes up -- most noticeably in the field of software.
> False. Talk to a drug company about patents sometime. And not the
> knockoff generic thieves either.
>> >> and if patents were not useful then the Founding Father would not have put
>> >> them in the Constitution.
>> Â Â ÂIt's a gross misrepresentation to call Patents in their current state
>> something that the Founding Fathers intended or approved of. The law has
>> been badly bent out of shape over the centuries and particularly over the
>> last few decades.
> False. The Constitution talks about patents: "To promote the Progress
> of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
...the key part being "to promote progress".
The state sanctioned monopoly is just a means to that end and a form
of government interference that is allowed by the consitution to
encourage that end.
> and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
> Discoveries" (Section 8). Section 8, like you dishonorably discharged
> from the Armed Services for being a nutter.
The language is there for all to see. The only one acting like a nutter
or a moron or a liar is you.
...of course if you are forced against your will to use Windows in |||
the day time your bound to have a lot to vent about in the evening. / | \