TheWorx

There was a time when patents were a good idea because it made an inventor more willing to share his invention with the world--in fact, the patent office insists that when you describe your invention, others should also be able to make it; just not make money off of that copying without a license from the inventor. So, you've invented something. You think it will make millions for you and benefit the World even though the latter is not a requirement. You produce the thing and find that someone has infringed on your patent before your product has even taken off. It cost you almost every spare penny you had. Now, you've got to mortgage your home because it is now up to you to sue and the courts now have to determine who really infringed on whom and what might you have done that invalidates the patent. Perhaps you left out a pertinent "prior art" that duped the patent office into giving you that patent [prior art must be acknowledged even though the USPTO has the best se...

I love how Mr. Krugman of the NY Times keeps up the pressure on our state of inequality as in this article, The Undeserving Rich - NYTimes.com , however, I would like to point out a minor fallacy in a minor example he uses to explain how the rich get away calling themselves "deserving." Mr. Krugman says that it is because the super rich and their minions lump the not-so-rich into the "rich" category--the 0.1% that I and Mr. Krugman disdain--and this thereby makes it seem as if there are many more at the top. This is a very valid observation but he makes a point of including LAWYERS in that "dilution" phenomenon, and with that, I take issue as I do with most people with government-issued licenses. No, there is nothing wrong with licenses per se (it is only that after the issuing, they are no longer regulated except for very egregious and, oftentimes, only serendipitous discoveries.) Now, what is it about the inclusion of lawyers that I find so objecti...