Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2012 09:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 537897
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-30
point is: the strict IP law we call "patent" is a business tool to increase profit by increasing the exploitation of customers by reducing their choice by reducing competition. people didn't vote in the "patent" -- influential organizations requested lawmakers introduce it and they did. or at least that is what wikipedia says.
business organizations are not people deserving justice by the people. but they are powerful and able to sway lawmakers to give them monopoly power and the legal rights of people. that is the history of IP. people got copyright, businesses got patent.
how far should your government go to protect business anti-competition?