NO ONE seems to understand the real threat here! These things continue to grow! Once the NSA achieves a certain level, someone with a yen for a promotion will push it to the next level, and the ultimate level?
This has been the unvarying pattern of such things!
As an IP attorney, I generally agree with this post. I do only small entity IP, since large entity IP is so abused I would feel unpatriotic doing it. When a client comes to me for IP work, I ask them to consider whether or not they actually NEED it. Obviously, if they have some sort of product that they can be sure other people will want to copy, they may need a patent. Also, obviously, if they have worked hard to build a good reputation, and the unscrupulous will want to unload junk using the good will they laboriously built up, they will need a trademark. I don't see, and have never seen, the need for copyright, but that could happen in some cases. But, by and large, most people DON'T need IP, and may be wasting their money in getting it.
We have to remember, Obama is part black (I think I am also, and it affects how - I think - honkies see me. Just putting the shoe on the other foot, colorless folk. Do the obvious, don't get mad, get even, like the House does). So, ALL the politicians from the Bible Belt, as well as several other States, are going to attack him however they can, and I think he is "gun-shy".
Let's not start with a faulty assumption, and move from that to the "logical" conclusion. Patent trolls threaten our innovation, and in essence, our economy. The effects are totally negative. However, especially with small startups, the threat of theft of an idea is substantial. FORMERLY patents didn't protect much - companies could "show" that they "had the idea"; and even "published", to defeat a patent. NOW we have "first to file", and the protection for a startup is SUBSTANTIAL!
First, admins often need access to other systems to get their work done, and the work is made difficult by denying it.
Second, the NSA has a history of making up stories in which they try to show they are reliable defenders rather than fascist scavengers. One way would be to say "it's not us, it's them", in this case admins merely doing their job.
To me, this story is bogus, with the express purpose of making Snowden look like he was doing illicit things, and the NSA being virtuous victims. I think they are throwing innocent people under the bus, to make themselves look good.
1. Comparing recommended salt between nations where very hard physical work is the norm (and salt needs, due to sweat, etc., are very high) to the average American is naive. It is like saying apples are "similar" to oranges.
2. Alcohol does NOT result in fat, just fast-burning calories. True, if you eat and drink, you tend to use the alcohol calories and store the food calories, but then, if you live in space, breathing is a problem.
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!