The Destruction of Gender Roles


Dude… you are posting nonsense. I have close to two dozen patents. My company pays through the nose … first the resources- labor and capital expenses- for me to perform the research, then for the labor to go through internal reviews of scientists, engineers, and marketing people… second, the patent attorney fees that they charge to work with me on the actual application to the USPTO… third, the USPTO fees, and then finally if a patent is granted there are patent maintenance fees if you want to keep that patent. And that does not cover one cent of the cost of defending the company’s claim to the patent if there is a dispute. For my patents, which all have defense applications, the government has royalty free use of the patent. So it is to the government’s benefit mostly.

Did the leftist hive narrative start including a section on patents as a form of welfare? Those who repeat the narrative almost always end up running away from their posts, looking like fools. Looks like you are trying to follow in those footsteps. I would advise against it.


Patents, copyrights are interesting.

Imagine if we had no patents. A person has an idea, puts the idea into production at great cost. Price the product to reflect his cost and profit.

A large corporation reverse engineers the product and begins production in an existing facility undercutting the inventors price.

The person who has time, and possibly costs in the invention loses everything and the corporation wins big time with little cost.

The other side is a song was released and had more than 7 nots in a row and the artist was sued by the originator with their 7 notes under music copyright law. The artist lost and paid millions even though the song was nothing like the original song.

The question is is the law to strict? Are patents which take 3 years to strict and limit competition? In China I went into one of their stores. The has a kids T-shirt that had a picture of Donald duck, their version had a WALT Risney logo similar to the Walt Disney logo and the name on the shirt was Ronald Duck. Clearly a patent infringement and little could be done about it.


I made an impromptu thread about gender roles and how biological based strategies for societal pressure are different for each gender, also why they shouldn’t overlap.

I’d appreciate any thoughts or criticisms.


Why fungible assets?


As I said, I do flatly oppose all inheritance taxes. The state should have no basis to basically assert a right of inheritance just because we live under it … it isn’t the King.

But besides that: why only fungible you ask?

Because if non-fungible assets are taxed, and it is often the case that the estate is relatively cash poor (that the value is in the land, the business etc. dominate by wide margin) what happens and the damnable leeches of the takerment are breathing down your neck for their take as they appoint themselves right of a heir?

But if you reformed that by only allowing fungible assets to be taxed concern about loosing the family farm or business goes away. No matter how valuable these may be they are not included.

Only assets that are by their nature liquid would be subject to inheritance taxes.


Ok, thanks for replying.


Okay. So you paid the government to give you a license to extort money from others.

Intellectual property is really not topic that anyone who does not already have a strong interest in it talks about. The ACLU in the BRCA cases, the EFF, the free software community, Google geeks, IP Watchdog, and certain pro-paatent entitled brats are a few of those groups that do talk about it.

Oh, I’m not running away. But why are you coming at me with a gun for those “licensing fees”?


That’s my position just without the interjected slip into mania. The non-fungible stuff can have sentimental value to people. I think that’s important to care about.


Because I’m not a communist?


Sounds pretty statist to me.


Well, as an alternative to relying on the USPTO records and attorneys, my company could simply destroy anyone that attempts to use the ideas that I patent without paying and send leather winged demons to eat the hearts of those who say they invented it first.


That’s just more force. You should use persuasion instead.


Threaten to bore them with trite posts on the internet?


Sure, that could be one way. Just no force, extortion, or threats. That’s statism.


Wouldn’t boring posts be state-ism, or maybe wall’o’textism?

I point that out as someone who has fired off some long ones.


It’s only statism if the force comes from the state.