There is validity to the argument that violent video games (or violent books) may promote actual violence. There is also validity to the argument that they should be allowable anyway. However, taking an extreme position on either side tends to invalidate an argument, whether for or against.
We need a "fair and balanced" approach (no, not the Fox news "fair and balanced", which meant "extreme").
However, confusing "exceptional" as used by the courts, as opposed with common understanding, is not helpful. There is a very great difference, and such cases would be "exceptional", even if "everyone does it".
Actually, when this first came up, I was persuaded. However, I checked on it further.
It strongly depends on WHAT is patented. If it is for the things the opposition homes in on, true. But that is like saying some pottery doesn't need firing in a kiln. VERY true, but very misleading.
There are industries and products where a patent (or trademark, etc.) needs the protection offered.
I talked to a client today. He made it clear that for most of the products his company works with, they MUST have patent protection, otherwise they will do a pass on the product - and he emphasized that comes from experience.
As a practicing attorney, I can see both sides. I have a major client who was shocked when I started involving them. They were even more shocked when I showed them how to improve their legal position while dramatically reducing the legal expense they incur (including to me).
But, hey, that is part of it! Like a doctor, who advises his/her patients to adopt a healthy life style, stop smoking, etc. - hey, they make more money from SICK people - all attorneys, IMO, should work with clients to HELP them be successful, not maximize income!
I will accept only small entities - the reason? The large entity IP world is dominated by trolls and other evils, and that is not why I became an attorney!
It all comes down to personal responsibility - so here I am, a "conservative liberal"? But that is the way I see it. As I tell my clients "stay out of court! Use your business skills to avoid litigation!"
I read it as: the IRS looks for trends, and the Tea Party VERY much want to mask who funds them - the best way is to get tax-exempt status, so all Tea Party groups tried.
The IRS saw this trend, and realizing the Tea Party was FAR more likely to try to get tax-exempt status than anyone else, targeted them - but only because they knew that was where they were most likely to find a problem, not political.
The Tea Party, and Republicans generally, see a "liberal plot". To me, a little stupid, but then, trying to get rid of the deficit without fairly taxing the 2% with 74% of the total wealth is even more stupid.
We all remember Newton - he is almost immortal. Einstein, Stradivarius, etc., etc.
I dimly remember De Laurentis, and I do remember (I think) he was involved in movies (CONTENT! CONTENT! This here be important, you peeples!). Soon, I (along with virtually everyone else, except for a few elderly teeny-boppers) will have forgotten "De who?".
But CONTENT be imp... val... gud!
Okay, I was on your side until you took the cheap shot: "other than the fact states who misused existing revenue are now hungry for more".
Making unsupported (and unsupportable - the current Reagan-era madness about "needing better bridges, better roads, safer foods and water, but not paying for them" is stupid on its face (as the elder Bush pointed out, initially) statements like that kills your whole argument. I am reversing my first decision - I want internet taxes!
It is actually MUCH worse than that!
Under Kappos, the rule was that approval depended on how much you paid.
So, a small entity with a genuine innovation, even an innovation that would benefit the public, but not much money, would be automatically rejected, whereas a big spender with total trash could get a patent (in all fairness, the worse the patent, the more money the patentee had to pay - but small entities were below the threshold, and would ALWAYS be rejected.
First, I agree about training police in sensitivity to pets, and the other ideas of discouraging any abuse of animals. I was raised with people who treated animals as "objects", and the idea is repulsive.
But to say "landscape people don't shoot dogs" - how many landscapers do you know that carry GUNS!! Scary idea!
And to say, no excuse for shooting a restrained animal - you sure don't know much about situations like that, do you? If I am restraining an animal that seems unduly dangerous, and it appears it is strong enough to break the restraint and attack (which might or might not be the case, neither of us know), I hope I have a gun! That's going to be one dead animal if I do! And yes, I would really hate shooting it.
In my case, I was walking my dog in Dallas, and an unleashed pit bull almost killed my 6 pound dog. I slammed the pit bull to the ground, pried my dog loose, and turned the pit bull over to animal control, who apparently killed it after a period of time. Beautiful dog, but if it was dangerous to others (even dogs), I see no alternative.
If it had bitten me when I put it down, I already had my knife out, and while I would have had to go to the hospital, I would have made sure the dog was dead, first. I suspect that is how many police persons feel - though, unfortunately, not all of them.
So, again, I like sensitivity training with the police.
First you argue that things you don't like, when allowed or the rules loosened, are "subject to abuse" (which is likely true), then things you like, should be allowed or the rules loosened, since they are not likely be be subject to abuse. Your reporting is excellent, but a little biased. You need to work on that.
Totally agree about open WIFI, but on encrypting email - okay, I am going to email my sister to say "Hi" - encrypt! Wait, why? Well, I am going to send an email about how someone is doing - ENCRYPT! Wait, why?
Maybe we can agree that open WiFi is okay, AND unencrypted email is okay (depending on how sensitive the data is, of course).
Small business owners, no matter how hard they work, do not "deserve" a salary, they earn it if they do it right!
But here, someone doing nothing useful (well, entertaining people might be "useful", but it is a stretch to say so!) somehow DESERVES a salary?
What if someone actually does something useful and lasting; should we have a law giving them a salary because "they deserve it"?
Don't think so, and I think it is outrageous to argue that.
"Techdirt? Consider the source and please supply that short (very short) list of one modern advanced country that has seen the light and eliminated all IP laws.
If there were even just one, then that cause-correlation claptrap you are so fond of might, just might, be more than dust-kicking."
The answer is the same as for any vital area of our lives. Illustration: Automobiles at one time were a leading cause of death in this country. Did we eliminate autos? No, we worked to fix; well, reduce; the problem.
Faced with appalling IP laws and usage world wide; should we just opt out, thereby giving the bad guys the victory? Hardly! If all the world would come to their senses and fix or abandon IP (I favor fix, but I AM an IP attorney (a good one, I might add, and appalled by IP laws as they exist).
If you had been actually listening, that is the message I get from Techdirt. Don't ignore the problem by opting out, FIX it!