It doesn't affect the patent. It affects the prescribability.

First, there is a break, when X cannot be prescribed (not made by the company, patent prevents generics), So the only option is X+1, which then becomes the entrenched standard.

Also, some jurisdictions don't allow generics for X to be prescribed. X is prescribed, and the generic can be substituted. So, by stopping the sale, they prevent the generic.

The latter can be fixed by changing the law... the former is a far more pernicious issue.

Libertarian philosophy as I understand it is about coercion.

No, libertarian philosophy talks a lot about coercion. The problem is that the word requires so much interpertation that it is meaningless..

Heck, let's use your example. First, your example presupposed that there is an objective, knowable standard for what a doctor should proscribe. And that somehow we can determine if something is "recklessly prescribing" or "prescribing ... after weighing the risks and benefits."

But secondly, a doctor prescribing something is seen as coercion, if and only if it was the wrong choice. If it was the right choice, no coercion. And it's only coercion if a judge tries to stop him from making a bad choice, not a good choice.

While I think "the decision most likely to be correct should be applied, regardless of source" is reasonable, I don't think it's what you intended.

I do agree with GP. These points are tired, and dragged out constantly. So I worry I'm wasting time shouting into the wind. But, I'll take that chance.

If your decision only affected you, run wild. That's your choice and your right.

It never affects only you. In fact, it doesn't affect you. It affects your kids.

Children are not chattel. They are not capable of making informed decisions, but they have to be protected from abuse. And, fucking a, antivaxers are child abusers.

Now that Usmanov has set the precedent, he can expect a lot of other Nobel Prize winners coming forth to cash in. And when Feynman's heirs put forth his, Usmanov can buy it and keep it.

I highly suggest you entirely disable cookies entirely (yes, I realize this is not worth it at all)

Why on earth would it not be worth it? Especially with whitelisting. Unless I have an account with a company there is no reason to have them save data on my machine.

real men have their own programming language

If I was in charge of a huge budget, and the ability to foist my language on the public, I would invent my own language. heck, every programmer wishes they could design the language everyone uses.

That is actually a very easy technical problem,

Sure it is. Every problem someone else has to solve that doesn't involve a measurable result (e.g. the bridge collapsed) is very easy, technically. If only they had my intelligence unburdened by their silly rules.

there's that whole pink/blue thing that is a modern invention. Hard to explain that.

Well, universal color coding makes sense to enable people to make gender references about newborns they don't personally know. Just like the blue/red divide in politics, it was originally arbitrary, and then somehow got imbued with meaning.

Ever consider girls don't like girly things cause there marketed towards them, but rather, that girly things are marketed to girls cause thats there tried and true demographic?

Well, the question is not about marketing, but societal conditioning. And the reason people believe that it is conditional-able instead of innate is different societies (or the same societies at different times) have conditioned men's/women's attitudes differently then they are now.

In comparison and somewhat ironically, Windows is completely free for devices under 8"

It's not ironic. Windows has always been very good at giving away copies of Windows in markets it did not think people would pay for them. It just used to be accomplished by simply not caring about, say a billion units of piracy in China.

Heck, startups still get free copies of most Microsoft software.

So, the post got made without double-checking that there was no counter-example to the depressingly likely "Eh, it's not like we were competing anyway?" That's complaining about the wrong part. It's like being upset that the governor misspelled your middle name on the execution notice.

although this treaty has not yet been accepted by a number of countries including the USA. Matter of fact, the US is one of the largest producers of land mines.

The US produces so many landmines for the DMZ between the Koreas. In fact, it has offered to sign the Ottawa Treaty if they add an exemption for that one area.

.... ought to be enough

For what? To have every idiotic thing he said taken as important ever since then.

Look, he definitely did an important thing. Since then, he's said and done stupid things for half-a-century. Why do I still have to care about him as a person.

A person having â" and even expressing â" inflammatory opinions should not be raising the requirement. To continue with my Mel Gibson analogy, he'll remain great in "Braveheart" and I'd love to have him autograph the DVD for me, even he not only "hates Jews", but turns out to be torturing kittens for fun...

And I still will continue to believe in DNA, and even use it all the time in my personal life. But, to answer your Mel Gibson analogy less allegorically: Braveheart was fine, if overlong. I didn't see his later work. There was nothing that screamed "you have to watch me" that overcame my desire to not give him any more money. Because, when it comes down to it, there are a lot of non-asshole actors I can support that are at least as talented as him. And I disapprove of anti-semites.

To re-analoge the point, there are enough brilliant scientists in the world, that I don't feel the need to suck Watson's dick. Especially as he seemed to think he was so brilliant he could speak with autority outside his field of expertise.

he was, undoubtedly, a brilliant scientist

He undoubtedly had one brilliant idea. Even with the blank check a Nobel winner gets for future research, he didn't really do anything else. One hit wonders exist.

Heck, his racism and sexism would probably continue to be overlooked if he continued making fundamental discoveries, or if his cancer research had borne fruit.

As a technophile who does not affect you in any way, shape or form

There's no such thing. If via no other mechanism, contributing to the use of something that the GP objects to strengthens its entrenchment via network effects, and may prevent a more agreeable (to him) solution from coming into existence.

Now, you may not care about that, but you cannot deny it exists.