Free Talk Live

Anyone proponent of copyright, trademark or patents don't understand that it can not be done unless one kills all innovation. And no I do not call it intellectual property, the laws are civil laws and intellectual property is a newspeak expression invented by the big-media in order to for them to be able to claim theft when there is none.

It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

I have been reading up on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a legislation powerhouse responsible for laws such as the Voter ID legislation that we are dealing with here in PA. They claim to be proponents of the free market, federalism, and limited government, but this whole group is just really creeping me out. Seems to support of transition of power, rather than a lessening of regulation. And then I saw this article supporting intellectual property rights.

They have been described as "A menace to society, a cancer plaguing our neighborhoods."

“The basic problem with patents is that you’re trying to assign property rights to something that doesn’t deserve property rights. The fact that these property rights end up in the hands of financial owners as opposed to the original inventors just exacerbates the problem. The basic problem is that Chris [Dixon] and a bunch of engineers can be sitting at Hunch designing some amazing new feature and somebody unbeknownst to them has a patent on this feature and never actually implemented it and can now screw them over… It’s just not right, it shouldn’t exist.”

Our patent system is a mess. It's a fount of expensive litigation that allows aging companies to linger around by bullying their more innovative competitors in court. Critics have suggested plenty of reasonable reforms, from eliminating software patents to clamping down on "trolls" who buy up patent portfolios only so they can file lawsuits. But do we need a more radical solution? Would we be possibly be better off without any patents at all?

red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire. Unlike Europeans, whose lives have long been circumscribed by meddling governments and diktats from Brussels, Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.

Judge Napolitano absolutely hammers the inherent trivial differences of the US political system while asking what if? What if it was all controlled opposition to maintain the US War Machine, the Two Party System and other inherent issues plaguing the system.

Unfortunately, we won't be seeing any more reports like this from the Judge, as FOX news just cancelled his show...They say it was because of low ratings, but the cynics say it was because he was regularly spouting information such as this; you be the Judge.

To make "America F*&% Yeah" (the theme to Team America World Police) the new national anthem.