Intellectual Property

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home2/yojoaorg/public_html/yenom/drupal/modules/taxonomy/ on line 33.

Content with an Intense Intent


The Dutchman Cometh

In the following I found myself writing, “It is a grave error on my part to post anything here that distracts from, or obfuscates the blog's intent.” To best assure that this very post does not fall into this same dismal category, I'm starting this out with an explanation of said intentions.

My most intent objective here is to reek havoc on the single greatest enemy mankind has. The term that most accurately seems to encapsulate the quintessential essence of this adversary is “FANTASY”. For better delineation, lets call it id-fantasy to distinguish it from day-dreaming and other distractions – i.e. idle-fantasy (although such forms of recreation tend to revolve around id-fantasies). The meme realm (in its entirety) includes id-fantasy as a subset. A simplistic yet hopefully helpful take on the human condition lies with an inspection of our meme set. In the beginning, crude emotion –primarily fear– forges most memes (basic id-fantasy which is perpetuated by the ‘Loving Mommy More than Truth’ type of thing). Nevertheless, actuality and logic do make painstaking inroads and so a polarized continuum arises in the meme pool between id-fantasy and reason. As more ’n more memes gravitate toward raw reality and reason the human condition improves. Unlike the oscillating Yin-Yang that compliment each other, this meme pool shift is unavoidably headed to ever greater levels of veracity. Note: while this could be perceived as a beautiful procession, there is nothing at all whimsical nor mystical about it. We are talking about pure brute cause and effect. Electricity, for instance, has its own irrevocable intricate set of laws by which it is governed (which no sorcerer nor politician has any means at all of violating). The advantages of understanding, observing, and honoring these laws can hardly be overstated nor can they be denied. The enduring stubbornness and tenacity of cause & effect instills a stabilizing ratchet effect to the correction of erroneous memes. In other-words, after sufficient advancement a virtuous meme becomes locked in and the threat of loosing ground or going backwards is minimal (for example, wasting virgins to volcanoes is hopefully part of an unrepeatable past).

Now, after establishing my goal (an effective attack on fantasy), the next question is how does one most forcefully unleash such an assault? Well, maybe it would pay to evaluate some potential targets and then struggle at choosing which one best merits asserted action for destruction. So one considers: 1) what fantasy most effects/dominates human life; as opposed to 2) what is the most monstrous fantasy closest to toppling anyway; verses 3) what fantasy is easiest to battle without deadly repercussions; and finally, 4) the undoing of what key fantasy would result in the greatest downfall of various other bad/ill-founded memes?

Lovely Lies - Damn Lies - and I.P.


Confusing the intangible with the tangible

Commenting on my post of December 12 ,2007 — What's wrong with the GNU GPL?

Alan wrote, “I believe the core argument in this post is: "Copyright is one of the state's basic mechanisms for seducing weak minds into sanctioning governmental violence to enforce contrived rights who's only hope of possibly being realized lies in the menacing threat of arrogant aggression." Without commenting on the rest of the post (which I mostly agree with), I feel this main point needs rebuttal.
    While the post in question concerned various (largely laudable) observations concerning the GNU General Public License, Alan did identify the single sentence that best captures my primary core argument. It could consequently be argued that this terribly belated response should follow Alan's comment under my original provocative post. I have, instead elected to create a new main (root level) post for the following reasons:
      1) Alan's comments far exceeds the scope of the main post.
      2) It's my unwary way of dignifying all my brutish ape-like chest pounding that has preceded this event.

Alan, graciously continues, “First, let me point out the extreme irony in this idea. It is no doubt that Mr. Z. Clark is strongly of the libertarian persuasion (as I am), sharing the two most important core beliefs of abhorrence from unnecessary force, and utmost respect for (physical) property rights. Yet, this is an argument over an abhorrence for intellectual property (IP) rights.
    Thanks, a better lead-in would be hard to come by. A no doubt conclusion (accusation) of my strong libertarian persuasion merits a few shared reflections however. I wonder if said persuasion is evident from this blog's contents or has more to do with personal knowledge of say the fact I ran against D. Gephardt as a Libertarian. In any event, the average libertarian may well cringe at any Z.Clark associations. If I had the stomach to investigate such things, Libertarians would likely still prove to be the least offensive political party in the US. But like the GPL, the mere exercise of either lends credence to a system which is ill founded at base. It's quaint at best to hope Libertarians can improve/salvage what the ‘Founding Fathers’ could not (i.e. the morbid transition from confederacy, to republic, to democracy on to socialism is systemic in nature and is fated to unfold as such despite the bloody patriot's best intentions). A flattering distinction for the GPL is that it hopefully sets a precedence (wittingly or not) of binding the machine against itself.
    To more directly contest the issue however, Alan apparently considers my inability to equate the “physical” horse in my front yard to the “intellectual” unicorn in Danny's imagination as “extreme irony” ... hmmm. All are invited to rephrase the foregoing to more advantageously reflect their perspective. Nevertheless the real crux of the problem I see lies in first 1) inventing then 2) claiming and finally 3) protecting ‘rights’ in the first place.

World's Most Powerful Business Method Patent Proposal!

PATENT Left – Taking the Patent to it's ultimate logical end

I apologize up front for inserting an extra post in ahead of my long over due thrashing of Intellectual Property theory. However, there's this hot idea that came to me while finishing up “WHY I.P.??” and it just can't wait. In fact, it's probably unwise to have delayed as long as I have – as some like-minded jerk could swoop in and steal all the glory.

Anyway, even yours truly has been bitten by the patent bug now. One can only imagine how the prospects of fame & envy serves to motivate an ill defined ego. So without further ado, here is the patent to end all patents:

  A business method wherein profits are realized from acquiring patents and then suing infringers.

Don't worry if the beauty of this doesn't exactly jump out at you (as that should help prove non-obviousness). Also note that acquiring any patents (other than the Power Patent just defined) is not necessary. You just need to find plaintiffs with patent infringement suits; then they in-turn become intrinsic defendants for infringing on your patented business method. A jolly-good bonus for anyone lacking friends is that such a patent would make you adored by thousands of attorneys.

It'd be dandy if someone could better express this concept in patent legalese. And anybody wanting to push my plan into some sort of fruition is welcomed to do so. In the event of actually filing a patent on this, one could even use me as the “Inventor” as this very post records the original idea. I don't even know what part of any profits I'd want to control, except to say that the initial candidate for receiving my share would be Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. The two reasons for this are: 1) it would be apt pay-back for the wonderful contributions rms & FSF have made to the world I love, and 2) the whole concept is just a basic rip-off of copyleft anyway — transforming patent rights to patents left powerless (to thwart innovation as they normally do).

WHY I.P.??

IP a real pisser

Intellectual Property and Other Fantasized Rights

I've rightfully been faulted for too slowly producing my promised pummeling of the pathetic premises behind Intellectual Property (IP). On the other hand, the mere diversion of attention from the blog's core theme (money morals) to engage IP proponents could reasonably be question as well. So true to what I indicated previously, this post will examine why IP is a valid YeNom blog topic.

Restating exactly what this blog's objective actually is may be useful. This can be best encapsulated as ... freedom. Now if the direct connection between YeNom/SUYO (Simple Undeniable Yank-proof Ownership) and freedom is not readily evident then this review is particularly pertinent. In contrast to ‘freedoms’ afforded by the state (better called “freakdoms”) were one is generously released of responsibility and encouraged to enjoy rights to unearned medicine, food, housing, condoms, etcetera; the freedom I'm selling is the exact anti-thesis where responsibility is actually the prime prerequisite for real freedom and a person is free to suffer the consequences of their own actions (regardless of how excruciatingly successful that may turn out). I'd further like to aptly argue that freedom can be equivalently understood as disengagement from slavery.

YeNoms advance the above by simply providing the most effective means personally conceivable for realizing freedom. In other-words, no single thing predisposes the human mind to respond more slothfully and slave like than the notion of money as some natural proprietary asset of the state. This hardly argues that money per se is evil (as if such a thing existed), but just the opposite since money could fully enable the division of labor with all it's life saving and Homo-sapien enhancing advantages. So the real problem lies in money being catastrophically crippled when employed as some proprietary weapon. YeNoms are not only a thief proof foundation for open money, but is further distinguished from the current proprietary system by rewarding integrity instead for enticing issuers to profit from acts of bad faith.


Syndicate content