The supply of content from a given creator remains finite. It is its distribution that has become easier. Since the original argument to the copyright commission presupposed infinite supply, it has no real relevance here.
Furthermore, the original argument was a rebuttal of the idea of perpetual copyright, not copyright of a finite term.
You don't need an amendment about business method patents. For one thing, nobody seems able to define them clearly. Most such patents are obvious anyway. If an examiner can't knock them out on obviousness grounds alone he really shouldn't be an examiner.
In your strawman, the examiner could just say "burgers are prior art, most people like to sell stuff to make money, therefore it would have been obvious to sell the burgers."
If you already have a patent on the burger, a claim that adds the extra step of selling your burger makes no difference because by definition, you already have the right to exclude others from making, using, and selling your burger.
Wait, isn't the amygdala associated with feelings of fear? Does that mean people who are more sociable are more fearful? But many unsociable people complain they are "afraid" of striking up a conversation. Very strange.
" Why does it matter if someone with a clearly inferior product calls theirs kleenex too?"
It matters because after awhile, people start thinking anything labelled "kleenex" is inferior. When they see your superior kleenex, they think "ugh, I remember last time I blew my nose with that stuff...".
So how do you feel about the FCPA? That's the one that says if a US corporation bribes a foreign official in a foreign country, it's punishable in the US, even though the actual bribery took place outside the US, and even though that country may not have had a law against it. Would you vote to repeal based on your reasons above?
I don't think so. In Article VI, treaties stand on equal footing with the constitution. The purpose of mentioning treaties in Article VI is so a state can't just say "Hey, this treaty conflicts with my state law, so I'm ignoring it".
Actually I think courts are not supposed to enforce things that are unconstitutional anyway, but the defendant still has to go through the trouble of proving that a particular law is unconstitutional (and face the risk of failing to do so). The statute removes this burden so the defendant doesn't have to do all that.
"Yes, because that's what it's all about - suing for $$$"
You say that with such disparagement. But what else can you do? The dual social goals is to discourage carelessness and to try to put the victim in a position he would have been had the carelessness not occurred. Since you can't rewind time, the best you can do is give the victim $$$. If you have any other ideas on how to achieve these two goals, the world would like to hear them.
Public humiliation only achieves the first goal, but not the second. (On the other hand, neither do $$$, but it's the best anyone has come up with).
Actually, blue, it is not the monthly travel that is unlimited, it is the number of times you can enter and exit the subway in one month. Since travel itself takes time, the amount you can travel per month cannot be infinite.
It's not altogether clear that New Yorkers are necessarily subsidizing your travel at some point. I think it would depend on the mean cost per subway stop, the number of stops you traverse, and the cost of your ticket. If you use up your 90 rides by going only one or two stops, you may actually be subsidizing riders who buy one ticket and spend all day on the subway.
Yeah but that applies to non-business travel as well. The purchase contract says the card is non-transferable, whether for business travel or otherwise.
There are some roads that say "no commercial traffic" (like the Merrit Pkwy), but that's about it. The streets in NY are shared by commercial traffic, non-commercial traffic, and even the occasional terrorist.
Dr. Henry's case is just "sound and fury signifying nothing." The case law is against her. I can understand being annoyed that she is trying to shut you up, but as a practical matter, her effort is just doomed to fail.