Oof that sucks I’m sorry to hear that. Thank you for explaining that, I was trying to understand where the disagreement was and was getting really confused. Good luck on the recovery!

In every way

You seem to be replying to someone else entirely.

I am saying plainclothes officers are absolutely a form of secret police, and regular police are arguably a form of secret police. I didn’t think that before but you and Enkrod have unintentionally made a very strong argument that is the case.

You are correct it’s all just word games, but it’s a game that seems to have you pretty riled up. Why?

Depends on the patent.

Not how that works, stop talking out of your ass (Gottschalk v. Benson)

It’s not “my definition of theft”, it’s “theft”.

You keep switching between moral and legal arguments. They are not the same.

It’s like these capitalists of today saying that OSHA needs to go because they’re losing profits to it

Deflection

You strike me as

Strawman

you decided to call me an idiot

Literally mirroring your words back at you

Is your face okay after walking into the point that hard and not seeing it?

What does “de jure” mean?

By that definition all police are secret police. Hell, most government workers due to qualified/complete immunity.

de jure unbound by constitutional limits

That by definition makes it lawful and by definition is operating “inside of it”.

Taken very seriously while it’s economy is in shambles and it’s military is depleted to the point of relying on Soviet era relics?

That “short time” and odd date range (January to April) should both be red flags to be highly suspicious of them taking credit for external factors and cherry picking data/date ranges.

My analysis was based on taking them at face value as being the sole reason for the change, with the knowledge that the numbers they are reporting are highly deceptive. Even from that naive perspective their numbers are bad.

However, the data shows a sharp increase in the murder rate starting around 2014 due to unknown causes. The dropoff from 2010-2014 is often attributed to the defeat of the CIA backed Shower Posse gang after the Tivoli incursion in 2010.

I would bet that the current high murder rate is due, in part, to IMF loans (starting in 2013), global transition away from sugarcane to beets (predominantly EU in 2015), CIA involvement and COVID tourism impacts dramatically destabilizing the local economy. That’s something that no amount of killing by the government sanctioned cartel will have any positive impact on.

Copyright exists to create a temporary monopoly so the creator can recoup their creation costs and some profit on top

Creation costs like the cost of an advanced degree? You’re repeating talking points like nobody’s heard them before and contradicting yourself every other comment.

How many transition steps are needed

That was a rhetorical question, let me try rephrasing that. If A+B+C=D and D+E=F is A a requirement to get F? Or is it no longer relevant because it’s 2 steps removed?

Let’s say my company gets funding to disseminate OSHA information to employees

I wish I got paid to avoid fines. I understand that is how your deeply corrupt system works but you really can’t understand the financial incentives there can you? Imagine that illegal parking is a huge problem so instead of parking tickets they pay everyone who owns a car to sit through a parking information seminar. Do you honestly think that isn’t going to factor into your decision on whether you should own/drive a car? Is it unreasonable to say that the state is paying you to drive?

2024 homicide rate was ~40.1 per 100,000. Jamaica population is ~2.8 million so ~1100 murders/year. 37% decrease in homicides is ~420/year. Increase in police killings is 67.

Assuming you can attribute the change totally to whatever the police are doing (almost certainly not the reality) that puts the situation as a 1:6 trolley problem.

Is it an improvement? Technically yes, but imagine anything else working that way and it should be pretty obvious the JFJ is right that this is insane.

And how NATO does propaganda against both Russia and China.

So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google’s and Amazon’s code?

Does a patent protect the concept or the specific code? You seemed pretty adamant that reverse engineering was theft previously, and assuming you haven’t changed your definition of theft then yes, according to your definition of theft I’m 100% certain that’s the case.

became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections

Thanks to those, or in spite of? You are focusing on outliers and expecting that to be a convincing argument to describe the typical.

these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.

Just because they can, doesn’t mean it’s something to expect. There are orders of magnitude between how often they protect, and how often the destroy. You a big lottery fan or something?

This is what my reply was to

Fair, I was attempting to limit scope with only discussing patents and not getting into the rest of the weeds and didn’t properly communicate that. I had assumed there would be more than a single neuron between the two of us, but that was clearly presumptive of me.

To work on interesting problems

If that’s people’s main motivator then why does copyright exist in the first place?

If we get subsidies

If you’re a large enough institution to have as many patents as you claim to then I guarantee you do. I would encourage you to dig into that as well as the why.

that doesn’t mean the patents were produced as a direct result of public funding.

How many transition steps are needed for a precursor chemical to no longer be a required precursor for a product? Is a byproduct that is sold not a product because it’s not the primary intended production output?

The student applies for a graduate program to get a degree, not get rich

And what’s the big selling point behind why you would want to get a degree?

because it’s an outlier.

Pre-pandemic public funding wasn’t, which is why I linked a source that provided both so you could see how much of an outlier it was/wasn’t.

If you go to the patent office and look at recent patents, I doubt a significant number are the result of government funding.

They all will be to some extent. The hard part is quantifying the extent for each individual patent. I can guarantee that you’re company received/has received some sort of public funding and so yes the government does have involvement directly funding them, even if it isn’t as explicit as with public health funding. Indirect funding is the much harder one to suss out but is likely significantly more.

Did Nintendo get government funding for its patents?

Directly? Probably not, but the whole point of bringing up universities was to show one of the indirect paths. However I don’t speak Japanese in order to actually research but would be very curious to know what sort of subsidies/public assistance it receives, if there exists a thing similar to MEDIA/Creative Europe, etc.

Microsoft or Apple just copy-pasting

Microsoft did copy and paste though: Yammer, Bing and Azure respectively. Apple tried with Ping/eWorld, Safari/Spotlight but didn’t really get into the web host space. Also worth mentioning the duopoly nature of those 2 specifically.

they give smaller companies SOME form of defence against the corps.

Rather telling that all your examples are Fortune 500 companies?

Do you also believe that OSHA was created to control the poor employee into submission by their great corporate overlord?

That’s a rather impressive hay golem you’ve built there.

WITHOUT ANY COPYRIGHT LAWS

We’re not talking copyright laws, we’re talking patent laws and you have yet to explain why it would be insane without changing scope or inventing fanciful scenarios.

imagine you make an innovative product. I don’t know, automatic fence painter

Do you know why there doesn’t exist automated fencepost painters? As bad as this sort of stuff is in software world it’s soooo much worse in hardware world. The licensing fees for every single little piece of IP that go into it would nickel and dime even large businesses out of building anything like that. Sure there’s also technical difficulties with building one, but those are surmountable. However, a business model that could survive the constant threats of litigation, licensing fees and turn even a mild profit does not exist.

Is this xenophobia to you?

Yes, because you just described what businesses throughout the Western world do to your mythical small business and projected it onto some mythical far east.

someone stealing your product and killing your business?

You do realize that is the point of IP right? To allow legalized theft in this exact manner? In the exact article this comment chain is discussing palworld did their due diligence to verify they weren’t violating any of Nintendo’s IP and then Nintendo modified their patent filing so that they were with the express goal of stealing their product.

the student will get hired to follow up on that research.

You’re right that that’s an aspect I forgot about, however If the patent system worked as you envision it then those students would own the parent which they would then lease to those companies. The actual situation is quite legally messy because it’s usually the universities which own the IP produced, (which is then leased out via partnerships, grants etc ) and when those individuals lease themselves with the promise of producing more valuable IP they have to take cautions to not infringe on their previous work.

I think that’s a bit extreme,

Not really, using Covid as an example this paper details the pre and post-epidemic funding sources that went into the discovery, testing and production of the COVID vaccine. Do you have any other examples you’d like to use to demonstrate how it’s “extreme”?

The COVID example, however, is an outlier

Yes and no, but it is well publicized and documented which is what I was trying to communicate with that specific one as an example.