Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Mar 2013 23:43 UTC
Legal Countries are starting to get into the patent business; countries like France and South Korea are setting up patent entities to protect domestic companies. "Intellectual Discovery presents itself as a defensive alliance: if a South Korean company finds itself targeted in a lawsuit, for instance, it can access the patents being compiled by Intellectual Discovery to hit back." I support this. If, say, a small Dutch company were to come under unfair patent aggression by bullies like Apple and Microsoft (quite likely these days), I damn well expect my government to protect them from it. If you can't fix the system, work with it. As simple as that.
Order by: Score:
The Patent War continues
by Luke McCarthy on Thu 21st Mar 2013 00:20 UTC
Luke McCarthy
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is an inevitable next step in the patent war. Consolidation of forces.

Reply Score: 4

also troubling...no more prior art?
by fran on Thu 21st Mar 2013 01:42 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Sort of related news...
The US made it's transition from a first to patent to first to file system few days ago.
I guess this will influence the prior art defense, but there are conflicting comments over the internet about whether this is the case.


http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/03/16/starting-today-the-us-has-...

Reply Score: 2

bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

That article was basically completely wrong.

In a first to invent system, if two people invent something independently, and both file, but the person who invented the item second, is the first to file, the first person, who was the first to invent, gets the patent.

In a first to file system, if two people invent something independently, and both file, but the person who invented the item second, is the first to file, the second person fails to get the patent due to the first person's prior art, and the first person is ineligible to file due to the second person filing first, so NOBODY gets the patent, and the invention reverts to the public domain.

Reply Score: 4

Tractor Member since:
2006-08-18

Prior art is not enough.
You need a "published prior art" to invalidate a patent.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Mar 2013 02:47 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

I think what we should have instead of patents is the government, or publicly funded NGO, pay for invention disclosures.

A company either keeps their invention a trade secret, or they open it and get a one time payment for some percentage over their research expenditure to produce such an invention.

That we, we can look at inventions in the cold hard light of reality, because not even a government wants to overpay for a worthless "invention". If a company decides to keep it as a trade secret and another company manages to recreate something similar*, then it's sort of proof that an invention was obvious and not patent worthy.

* Obviously we have to allow for companies to protect themselves from their inventions being stolen**, provided they have the evidence first, rather than fishing expeditions.

** Not counting reverse engineering.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kwan_e
by Laurence on Thu 21st Mar 2013 09:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by kwan_e"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

That would work for the original intention of patents where processes). But these days much of the stuff that is patented are ideas, designs or even just maths. It's a lot harder to have those things kept closed and thus you're practically encouraging companies to continue to patent as they are. In fact, you're practically giving them a free pass to sue other companies (ie "X designed a swipe to unlock, Y saw that idea and now we want our research time refunded").

I do like your idea a lot though. And in an ideal world, designs and ideas would be covered by copyright alone, and maths couldn't be intellectual property. So your method would work.

There's certainly not a lot right in the current set up and having governments set up patent pools like that only emphasis the issues rather than help address them.

PS the nerd in me loves your nested footnotes. ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Mar 2013 10:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

That would work for the original intention of patents where processes). But these days much of the stuff that is patented are ideas, designs or even just maths. It's a lot harder to have those things kept closed and thus you're practically encouraging companies to continue to patent as they are.


That system isn't intended to work alongside patents, but to supersede them. No more patents, but we still want people to disclose inventions; and I think it will be fairer because the small inventors can be on a more equal playing field.

In fact, you're practically giving them a free pass to sue other companies (ie "X designed a swipe to unlock, Y saw that idea and now we want our research time refunded").


That's not a strong enough claim to sue others even today, but I included an exemption for reverse engineering, which I think covers it. But even if it comes to that, repaying research time is much more fairer than some vague "damages" that can't be proven.

I bet swipe to unlock costs less to develop than whatever silly damages that are claimed from copying it. It would also serve as a way to expose how much an invention is really "novel".

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by Laurence on Thu 21st Mar 2013 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


That system isn't intended to work alongside patents, but to supersede them. No more patents, but we still want people to disclose inventions; and I think it will be fairer because the small inventors can be on a more equal playing field.

Yeah, I got that. You're missing my point that if this is a drop in replacement then it doesn't fix anything (design / math patents are the core of the issue and your method, if used to enforce design IP, could still be abused).

If your method isn't used as a drop in replacement then it would never get passed as companies would lobby against it. (i know that's a terribly pessimistic comment, but half the problem we have the patent mess is down to companies influencing law).

Plus whether you call your method "patenting" or not, you still need some formal method of certification as otherwise nobody will know what designs they're allowed the be influenced by and what designed they're not (which again, comes back to my point about how I'd rather see designs covered by copyright).


That's not a strong enough claim to sue others even today,

Except that's exactly what is happening at the moment. (eg Apple's swipe to unlock patent).


but I included an exemption for reverse engineering, which I think covers it.

Your point was either the IP is put into the public domain and is covered or is kept hidden but is allowed to be reverse engineered. Design IP cannot be hidden (it's very nature means just releasing the product puts that IP into the public domain). So your reverse engineering rule doesn't really apply. And this is why I'm saying that as much as I like your idea, design patents are the real issue.


But even if it comes to that, repaying research time is much more fairer than some vague "damages" that can't be proven.

There's valid arguments for and against each (you could argue that you're not encouraging "innovation" if everyone can leach of each others research without investing in their own). I don't think there's any right or wrong answer here as both your method and existing patents are open to abuse. However if given a choice between what we have currently and what you're suggesting, then I'd probably side with your method.


I bet swipe to unlock costs less to develop than whatever silly damages that are claimed from copying it. It would also serve as a way to expose how much an invention is really "novel".

Good point ;)

Edited 2013-03-21 11:21 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Mar 2013 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Yeah, I got that. You're missing my point that if this is a drop in replacement then it doesn't fix anything (design / math patents are the core of the issue and your method, if used to enforce design IP, could still be abused).


Design/math patents won't be enforceable under that system. No government/NGO would pay for it. I think I haven't been clear on this point, but the intent of the system is that once the invention is disclosed, and the inventor is compensated, they have no further claims to the invention. There's no licencing.

If your method isn't used as a drop in replacement then it would never get passed as companies would lobby against it. (i know that's a terribly pessimistic comment, but half the problem we have the patent mess is down to companies influencing law).


Yes. I'm playing Sim-Society here. It has no DRM restrictions. Yet.

Plus whether you call your method "patenting" or not, you still need some formal method of certification as otherwise nobody will know what designs they're allowed the be influenced by and what designed they're not (which again, comes back to my point about how I'd rather see designs covered by copyright).


That would be the point. I think the fact that a government/NGO -> taxpayers would pay money for the invention means that people on all sides of the political spectrum would want a very thorough certification process. Much more thorough than what exists, and a much higher bar to go over.

"
That's not a strong enough claim to sue others even today,

Except that's exactly what is happening at the moment. (eg Apple's swipe to unlock patent).
"

My understanding of that is not the "design" of the swipe to unlock, but certain implementation details crucial to the definition of the invention.

"
but I included an exemption for reverse engineering, which I think covers it.

Your point was either the IP is put into the public domain and is covered or is kept hidden but is allowed to be reverse engineered. Design IP cannot be hidden (it's very nature means just releasing the product puts that IP into the public domain). So your reverse engineering rule doesn't really apply. And this is why I'm saying that as much as I like your idea, design patents are the real issue.
"

That's the point. Design IP should not be patentable, so my proposed system does not reward design IP (or mathematics).

"
But even if it comes to that, repaying research time is much more fairer than some vague "damages" that can't be proven.

There's valid arguments for and against each (you could argue that you're not encouraging "innovation" if everyone can leach of each others research without investing in their own).
"

I think it encourages small-time players to be innovative. First, they don't have to pay licence fees, so they've got a lot of prior art to innovate from for free. Innovation is evolutionary and based off the work of others. I'd say having inventions open so that people can stand on the shoulders of giants would encourage more innovation than the promise of financial reward dependent on business success.

Edited 2013-03-21 12:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kwan_e
by Yamin on Thu 21st Mar 2013 15:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by kwan_e"
Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

While interesting, and it certainly could be an improvement, I can't help but wonder what could go wrong.

Government body willing to pay for 'invention' disclosures.

If you thought patent trolls were bad today trying to extort companies which they have to at least take to court... imagine the abuse this kind of system would bring. This kind of system bring 0 cost to getting money out of patents. At least the current system imposes big legal fees to win at trial.

Everyone would just hack together something and take it to this 'board' to be paid. How much? Who knows! We'll have lobbyists to maximize payment.
What gets accepted as an invention?
Well, now you have the same problem as today with a 'patent' office evaluating patents to see if they are valid or not.

And given their record, they don't seem to be able to evaluate the validity of a patent... much less how much that patent is worth. Now you're doubling the complexity and workload of a system that has been proven to be incompetent?

I would actually theorize that it is highly probable your system would actually be worse than the current system. In the current system people file patents for a variety of reasons (protect ip, defense, licensing...), but immediate direct profit from the government is not one of them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by Alfman on Thu 21st Mar 2013 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Yamin,

While it's nice to get rid of the lawsuits, I see alot of problems arising from it too.

Foremost is funding, where does the money come from?

Secondly, inventors would start working for these government handouts as an ends unto itself rather than a means to an end (such as bringing products to market).

Thirdly, it doesn't solve the fundamental scalability issues inherent in the patent system. It can require more work to process a case and determine whether the claims in one patent infringe those of another than to actually come up with the "invention" in the first place, which is usually incremental anyways and not very valuable. Today's patent system mostly leaves it to the courts to determine validity.


Fourthly, for many technical fields, including my own, patents were never very useful to real practitioners anyways. In these cases dropping patents all together can make more sense than introducing another patent system with more problems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Mar 2013 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Foremost is funding, where does the money come from?


Taxes. I repeatedly mentioned government or government funded NGOs. That sounds bad, but as I mentioned to Yasmin, using taxes this way makes people take notice, and it forces the question to be asked during evaluation: how much is this patent worth to society?

Thirdly, it doesn't solve the fundamental scalability issues inherent in the patent system. It can require more work to process a case and determine whether the claims in one patent infringe those of another than to actually come up with the "invention" in the first place, which is usually incremental anyways and not very valuable. Today's patent system mostly leaves it to the courts to determine validity.


It does solve some scalability issues, mostly by reducing the input. A great deal of inventions won't get submitted because the inventors don't get licencing deals any more. Just a one time payment.

Remember, the payout is tied to actual proven research costs. An inventor will have to submit documentation of the research that resulted in an invention. That further reduces the input, because most "inventors" won't bother because they have bugger all research to show for it.

Fourthly, for many technical fields, including my own, patents were never very useful to real practitioners anyways. In these cases dropping patents all together can make more sense than introducing another patent system with more problems.


Yes, such a system does not reward useless patents. In a taxpayer funded system, no one on any side of the political spectrum would support overpaying for inventions. No more rounded corners or slide to unlock lawsuits because they wouldn't have been granted in the first place.

See my note about payouts tied to research costs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 01:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Further on the subject of scalability, under the proposed system, there is virtually no need for defensive patents, because inventors no longer own the invention once they get their payout. This reduces the amount of worthless invention disclosures being maintained.

It would also ease pressure off the courts, because there can be no infringement under the system. The inventor was compensated for their time and energy, and can no longer claim to be damaged by infringement.

On the subject of abuse, the proposed system was designed with the abuse in mind. The current patent system is desirable to abuse because patents are a potential source of perpetual income. The use of one time payments, however abused, has limited effect on society and the economy.

I think the one major cause of problems in the current patent system is the perpetual income aspect, and companies fight for longer and longer terms. It hurts both society and economy perpetually.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kwan_e
by Alfman on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 03:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

"Further on the subject of scalability, under the proposed system, there is virtually no need for defensive patents...This reduces the amount of worthless invention disclosures being maintained."

Yes, there's no need for defensive patents, but aren't you still increasing the incentive for smaller players to join the patent system who are currently under the radar? The majority of us don't get any patent royalties today, but we could start submitting patents due to these courtroom-free payouts.


"It would also ease pressure off the courts, because there can be no infringement under the system. The inventor was compensated for their time and energy, and can no longer claim to be damaged by infringement."

It's true this would be a benefit, but I'm still worried that today's expenses of proving patent validity in the courtrooms would have to be pushed up front for each and every patent, which will be even more expensive in total because there are relatively few lawsuits compared to patent applications.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 04:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Yes, there's no need for defensive patents, but aren't you still increasing the incentive for smaller players to join the patent system who are currently under the radar? The majority of us don't get any patent royalties today, but we could start submitting patents due to these courtroom-free payouts.


But how much incentive is it really? It still has to get reviewed. And the maximum payout is a lot smaller than the effort to submit any old nonsense. Even in the current system with its minimalist review outright nonsense like perpetual motion machine patents gets rejected.

We WANT smaller players to join. No matter how many smaller players join, I'd think it will still be a lot less than the number of patents that go through for defensive purposes.

I think a big barrier for the flood of useless patents will be the requirement for research costs to be documented. Fraud will be punishable, obviously.

"It would also ease pressure off the courts, because there can be no infringement under the system. The inventor was compensated for their time and energy, and can no longer claim to be damaged by infringement."

It's true this would be a benefit, but I'm still worried that today's expenses of proving patent validity in the courtrooms would have to be pushed up front for each and every patent, which will be even more expensive in total because there are relatively few lawsuits compared to patent applications.


I would say the expenses of having to prove patent validity in the courtroom is precisely a result of not doing a thorough validation in the beginning.

As people like us know, defects found late in the development cycle costs a lot more than if they were identified early in the development cycle. Same thing is happening with the court system, I would say. I bet it's a lot more expensive to have each patent dispute go through the courts for all parties, including the taxpayers, than if a little bit of money is spent in the beginning.

But then, politics is notoriously bad at learning from mistakes that most engineering disciplines have developed strategies for.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kwan_e
by Alfman on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 04:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kwan_e"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

"But how much incentive is it really? It still has to get reviewed. And the maximum payout is a lot smaller than the effort to submit any old nonsense. Even in the current system with its minimalist review outright nonsense like perpetual motion machine patents gets rejected."

Haha, well it almost sounds like your trying to justify such a patent system on the basis that it'd be of limited utility to actual devs ;)

However, if I knew I could be paid $500-$1K by the government when I wrote a new unique algorithm for a particular code context, I'd just have to write a few algorithms a month to make a decent income. For the same amount of effort, it might even pay better than my clients do. If so, the patent system would give rise to a new breed of developers who essentially work for the government to file patents. I might even outsource it to devs in India who are more than happy to take a cut.


"I would say the expenses of having to prove patent validity in the courtroom is precisely a result of not doing a thorough validation in the beginning."


Of course, but that's precisely the point I'm trying to make, the overhead costs of doing a thorough validation in the beginning can only go up. In many cases the government would end up paying the patent clerks more than the research is even worth. How is this justifiable?


Edit, Response to second post:

"Get the taxpayers involved, and you'll get the protests. Think about how conservatives rant about teachers being paid too much. Think about how much scrutiny a publicly funded system would get and how much crap companies are going to get for applying for rounded corner patents?"

These are the reasons your proposal could never be accepted in the first place. If it already existed, it would be the first on the chopping block because paying devs for patents with public funds isn't really something that benefits the public.

"Society pays a lot more right now with the current system."

Today's patent system is high cost, little public benefit. Your proposal eliminates many of the negatives, but other than that it still doesn't give much public benefit. It makes more sense to drop the system all together and not have any associated costs at all. The majority of devs wouldn't loose any benefits since we're already avoiding patents as much as we can today.

Edited 2013-03-22 05:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by Alfman on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

"Taxes. I repeatedly mentioned government or government funded NGOs. That sounds bad, but as I mentioned to Yasmin, using taxes this way makes people take notice, and it forces the question to be asked during evaluation: how much is this patent worth to society?"

Taxes are high enough I say. I honestly don't think we could afford it, the US national debt is enormous.


"It does solve some scalability issues, mostly by reducing the input."

Do you think there'd be fewer submissions from people who will have nothing to loose by filing, and don't even have to go to court anymore to get a payout?



"Remember, the payout is tied to actual proven research costs."

"No more rounded corners or slide to unlock lawsuits because they wouldn't have been granted in the first place."

I understand your intentions, although once lawyers get ahold of it those intentions won't matter ;)

Ultimately someone in the patent office has to decide what it's worth with far fewer resources than they need to cross check the entire history of prior art in the field. The current patent system sets them up to fail, how does your proposal help these patent clerks succeed?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

kwan_e,

"Taxes. I repeatedly mentioned government or government funded NGOs. That sounds bad, but as I mentioned to Yasmin, using taxes this way makes people take notice, and it forces the question to be asked during evaluation: how much is this patent worth to society?"

Taxes are high enough I say. I honestly don't think we could afford it, the US national debt is enormous.


The budget of NASA is half a percent.

As I mentioned in my reply to your other comment, don't you think you're actually paying more, currently, to have silly patents go through the courts? Wouldn't you rather spend some money up front than to spend a lot more money later on to fix something stupid?

"It does solve some scalability issues, mostly by reducing the input."

Do you think there'd be fewer submissions from people who will have nothing to loose by filing, and don't even have to go to court anymore to get a payout?


They have a lot to lose. Their time. And the possibility of being caught for fraud in their research costs documentation.

The current patent system sets them up to fail, how does your proposal help these patent clerks succeed?


By making validation happen at the earliest level like it should be. Get the taxpayers involved, and you'll get the protests. Think about how conservatives rant about teachers being paid too much. Think about how much scrutiny a publicly funded system would get and how much crap companies are going to get for applying for rounded corner patents?

I imagine a Tea Party redneck internal monologue going something like this: "If rounded corners is an invention, then I'll be a monkeys uncle. And I ain't no liberal evilutionist".

You'll get everyone arguing for more validation up front (more patent clerks and more funding) so that they can avoid paying even more for a worthless patent.

Society pays a lot more right now with the current system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Mar 2013 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Everyone would just hack together something and take it to this 'board' to be paid. How much? Who knows! We'll have lobbyists to maximize payment.
What gets accepted as an invention?
Well, now you have the same problem as today with a 'patent' office evaluating patents to see if they are valid or not.


Yes, but if the government is paying for invention disclosures, EVERYONE has a vested interested in making sure worthless inventions do not get accepted.

The problem is no evaluation is really happening. But if taxpayers are now invested in the process, they want value for money.

And it's not a free for all. The only compensation they get is some percentage over their research costs. If everyone hacks something together to get it evaluated and it passes, well, where are their research procedures?

And given their record, they don't seem to be able to evaluate the validity of a patent... much less how much that patent is worth. Now you're doubling the complexity and workload of a system that has been proven to be incompetent?


Again, it's because no evaluation is happening, because of the assumptions that patents are magically good for the economy. But now if the government pays for it, then we can actually ask the question: well how much is this invention worth to the economy?

Right now, that question isn't asked when a patent is evaluated because it's assumed that, once granted, the worth to the economy .

Lastly, you seem to forget that inventors in the proposed system do not get any control of the invention. So no licencing, thus no patent trolling, or even patent lawsuits. That would reduce the amount of inventions that gets submitted from those who are looking to extort a continued licence fee.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by Yamin on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 09:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

At times it is amazing to me how people think bureaucracy can micromanage things.

Money tied to research costs.
You don't think people can make stuff up?

In Canada, we have something called R&D credits where the government hands out R&D money. Do you know what happens? There are entire consulting firms who just sit around writing applications and getting money.

It is insanely easy to make up anything to submit.
And if you then make the cost tracking too high, good luck with any small inventor keeping enough records and everything to actually make use of the process.

And now what you've done is moved the monetary value of a patent from it's utility to how much time was spent on it. This would like paying software developers based on lines of code instead of functionality.

As to the 'people' having a vested interest. This doesn't work elsewhere in the democratic system, why would it work in relatively small regulatory body of the government? This is not healthcare or education where people can get up in arms about... and even in those cases they rarely demand value for money... instead... they just want more stuff.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kwan_e
by unclefester on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 05:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by kwan_e"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

I think what we should have instead of patents is the government, or publicly funded NGO, pay for invention disclosures.


Totally impractical. It is virtually impossible to value many patents. The creator of this incredibly simple idea earned about $30m.
http://www.google.com/patents/US3351836

In contrast about $500m and over 30 years effort was wasted on this fiasco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_engine

Reply Score: 2

Useless initiative against patent trolls
by Lobotomik on Thu 21st Mar 2013 08:32 UTC
Lobotomik
Member since:
2006-01-03

That may provide some defense against bully companies like Apple, but not against the patent trolls that are a dime a dozen and cannot be sued for patent infringment.

Reply Score: 2

NAPO
by r0b0 on Thu 21st Mar 2013 09:47 UTC
r0b0
Member since:
2006-09-21

And later, countries will form alliances. North Atlantic Patent Organization, anyone?

Reply Score: 2

Mmmm
by Gone fishing on Thu 21st Mar 2013 09:54 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

I'd hate to see governments getting into this. Spending public money on invalidating patents, buying patents to be used to protect industries against competition or from patent aggression by other states.

Why not just fix the system instead.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Mmmm
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 21st Mar 2013 10:46 UTC in reply to "Mmmm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why not just fix the system instead.


Because it can't be fixed.

http://www.osnews.com/story/26138/IP_law_undemocratic_totalitarian_...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Mmmm
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Mar 2013 11:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Mmmm"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

What about "fixed" like a pet?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Mmmm
by Pro-Competition on Thu 21st Mar 2013 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mmmm"
Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

+10

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mmmm
by Gone fishing on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Mmmm"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

I agree - but if you have a cancer you fix it by eliminating it not making it more benign.

I meant fix in a radical sense - making the problem go away. Governments should not support these

undemocratic, totalitarian, and unethical
laws

which arming with more IP is. This is just MAD and we need to get away from this madness.

What about "fixed" like a pet?


I was thinking more on the lines of putting down.

Edited 2013-03-22 09:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Makes sense
by ronaldst on Thu 21st Mar 2013 15:48 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Why let others cheat the free market and ultimately sabotage the economy when government can do it directly themselves? ;)

Greed and incompetence will be the downfall of government. Like always. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Makes sense
by kwan_e on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 01:35 UTC in reply to "Makes sense"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Why let others cheat the free market and ultimately sabotage the economy when government can do it directly themselves? ;)

Greed and incompetence will be the downfall of government. Like always. ;)


Why is it libertarians only get fired up over things that are ostensibly named the government, and not entities that behave like governments but not governments in name?

Large companies (that make this kind of thing necessary) are governments in the amount of power they wield too.

Reply Score: 3

Nico57
Member since:
2006-12-18

Like !

Reply Score: 2