Who doesn't like a good doughnut (or donut)? Okay, so maybe a significant population around the world doesn't consume doughnuts regularly, but that could change.
In Argentina, for example, they don't have donuts; they have facturas, a term that describes a broad class of vaguely similar pastries, much like "donut" does in the US. Most of them are very yummy, particularly those made at a high-quality panadería.
DerYeghiayan's theory was that Karpeles wanted to create a market that used Bitcoin in order to keep the price of the semi-anonymous cryptocurrency robust, which he believed was probable cause for Karpeles's arrest. (Mt. Gox went bankrupt in early 2014.)
"[Silk Road] would be a device for leveraging the value of Bitcoin, and if he could create a site independent of Bitcoin, you could control the value of Bitcoin," Dratel said, reading from DerYeghiayan's emails.
The problem with the theory is that we already know what was happening at Mt. Gox due to leaked documents, and they didn't need an independent site to manipulate the value of Bitcoin; they were doing it themselves. The giant run-up in Bitcoin's price, and its subsequent crash, are both attributable almost entirely to fraudulent transactions being made by a bot running within Mt. Gox's servers. This makes the need for Karpeles to be running Silk Road in order to accomplish this superfluous.
Antibiotics are tricky stuff. Killing bacteria is actually surprisingly easy. There are any number of ways to kill every harmful bacterium in your body, guaranteed. Jumping into an incinerator, for example. This simple (if absurd) example should intuitively explain the difficulty with developing effective antibiotics.
Bacteria are living creatures, which means that antibiotics, when you get down to it, are poisons. It's very difficult to come up with a poison that kills bacteria but doesn't harm humans. It's even harder to come up with a poison that kills harmful bacteria while minimizing the damage to your internal ecosystem of "gut fauna" and other helpful microbes that exist in symbiosis with you...
We all know that the First Amendment of the Constitution is there to protect us from government interference with free speech. It has no impact on private companies and how they treat your expression.
That excuse has always felt like a cop-out to me.
The way I figure it, if certain intrusions on our freedom are considered so fundamentally abominable that we preemptively deny their use even to the people that We The People choose to place in the positions of the highest trust, even though we can still hold them accountable after the fact, how much less, then, should we tolerate such intrusions from unelected, untrusted, unaccountable private actors?
Beer: it seems to cause all kinds of trademark problems. I'm actually not sure why that is. Beer makes me happy, not litigious.
Well, that's you. It makes plenty of people violent, and pretty much everyone stupid, because its active ingredient is a toxin that damages the brain. And when a company gets stupid and violent, this is most often expressed through legal, rather than physical, force.
Yeah, this is what I've been saying for years now: The DMCA takedown system is blatantly unconstitutional because it destroys Due Process and the Presumption of Inncocence, and it needs to be done away with.
The geniuses who came up with this idea apparently never owned a cat before. Seriously, how do you train a cat to do anything?
Have you ever owned a cat? Yes, they're not as easy to train as a dog, because the average cat is more intelligent and more strong-willed than the average dog, but it's not all that difficult either, with a bit of patience...
Again, the basic concept is invalid. What you describe (penalizing a corporation only because it has become to large or too profitable) is "penalizing success," and nobody actually believes in doing that.
What people do believe in is penalizing abuse, and simply because a corporation has to become successful before having enough power to get away with being abusive still doesn't turn that into penalizing success.
Penalizing a corporation for being "too" successful does not foster a environment of economic growth. It would be counterproductive.
Please avoid ridiculous corporatist tropes like "penalizing success" if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. "Penalizing success" is a Libertarian strawman designed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction that distracts people's attention from the real issue.
No (sane) person believes in a policy of penalizing success. What is a good policy, however, is penalizing abuse of power. Since an organization has to be successful to a certain degree in order to gain enough power to become abusive toward society in general, it's easy to accidentally conflate the two, especially if a malicious actor with an agenda has already deliberately conflated the two to try to confuse you.