Since you seem to not be reading what anyone says, this is the last reply I will make.

I find all sorts of business practices immoral and unacceptable... however no government anyway has passed a law against them.

Being philosophically evil is a standard business practice, and some (such as myself) might argue that capitalism as it exists rewards such evil. But the fact that something is clearly WRONG does not make it ILLEGAL.

Take your hypothetical flour example, there are no Anti-competitive practices described:

He has not colluded with competitors.
He is not preventing entry of anyone into the market.
His supplier is not contractually bound to deal only with him (or even with him at all).
He is doing the opposite of dumping.
His current position seems like a monopoly, but the presence of monopolistic circumstance is not illegal (particularly in short term situations); what is illegal is preventing competition from occurring.

and further more he is not even a monopoly.... Why?
Which governmental body has jurisdiction?
The Country or State? The $5 reseller is not the only person to sell flour within their jurisdiction so he is not engaged in a monopoly.

You have a lot of anger and frustration... this is good.
But only if you do something with it; and it has to be the right thing. Yelling "That's illegal" when something is not illegal is not the right thing.
Either work towards changing "legal" to be more representative of "fair", or educate others.

Before you can do any of this you must educate yourself.

YA RLY! Think of the children!

Ummm..... NO.

That is not illegal. Greedy? yes. Unethical? yes. Parasitic? yes. But not illegal, it's not even a monopoly; and as many people are going to observe it is "the American dream" to buy something, do nothing, and double your investment.

What (in theory) is illegal here are potential allegations of impersonation, wire fraud, and unauthorized access.

Now if you have an idea of how to remove parasites from the market place then I'm all ears, but pretending that capitalism is illegal is not the same as fixing capitalism.

p.s. by "fixing capitalism" I mean either: "Making it work for the good of all" or "Cutting it's balls off so it stops breeding".

I don't think you are quite grasping the concept of "intangible asset" in this context. It doesn't refer to "financial products" or other forms of speculation on the commodities market.

Intangible assets are intellectual properties; such as trademarks, patents, copyrights, possibly even software licenses. They are intangible because their value cannot be assessed by the paper they are printed on.

Whatever our views of the current IP system, most people would agree that Intangible assets often have a value beyond the actual costs of creation.

Currently a company can claim the same deduction for contributing toward an FOSS as they can for in house software... the wages of their employees.
If FOSS contributions could be treated as an asset donated toward a charitable organization then things like the market value and basis come into play; under very common circumstances these will create a higher deduction.

so, in summary.... if you have problems with corporatism, capitalism, or the legal system; please learn to state it coherently and have some idea what subject is being discussed.

I don't really know how /. works as far as notifications regarding responses down the chain... so here's a link to consider.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1561726&cid=31262354

I also here that political charities are opposed to tax breaks.

Yes and no...
This article relates to a discussion of translating time and effort into an asset.

Services and Time are not deductible... Assets are.

Think about it this way if you develop some ingenious recording/broadcasting device for your church you can claim your actual expenses as a donation.
However if you create this device and patent it you have now created an asset. If you then donate the patent to your church you are no longer restricted to the same set of expenses.

IRS Pub 526 states:
Patents and Other Intellectual Property

If you donate a patent or other intellectual property to a qualified organization, your deduction is limited to the basis of the property or the fair market value of the property, whichever is less. Intellectual property means any of the following:

        * Patents.
        * Copyrights (other than a copyright described in Internal Revenue Code sections 1221(a)(3) or 1231(b)(1)(C)).
        * Trademarks.
        * Trade names.
        * Trade secrets.
        * Know-how.
        * Software (other than software described in Internal Revenue Code section 197(e)(3)(A)(i)).
        * Other similar property or applications or registrations of such property.

A lot of how this applies to you will depend on whether you are an individual or a corporation (a corporation will have methods of assigning a much higher basis, and of course on the quality of your professional advice.

In the US there are several very deeply entrenched political biases against the responsibility of the individual to society... so yes your background influences how you are taking both the words "social" and "welfare".

Try reading it this way instead;
"Developing commons-based software contribute towards improving the standard of living in a very real way. Most tax entities provide for tax deductions of goods and services to charitable organizations. If FOSS development was given the same tax-reducing benefit that donations to religious and political organizations have, this would greatly foster (and to an extent subsidize) corporate interest in creating, contributing, and releasing commons-based software."

If such development contributions can become "intangible assets" (things that have value but not a price tag), then they can be "donated" to a charitable non-profit. The non-profit then assesses a value for the donation, and this amount now becomes tax deductible to the company.

Since this wasn't clear I'm just guessing that "intangible assets", "equitable tax treatment", and "donation" are the real things that you didn't understand... and "social welfare" was just the political trigger that you focused on.
If you genuinely want to learn the complexity of taxes, capitalism, freedom, and responsibility; I'd recommend you change where you get your news from.

p.s. As a personal recommendation; if you're able to disarm your "political triggers" try NPR instead of the usual network ratings whores. You'll learn a lot rather than be told a lot.

I personally have no problem with referring to risque-pics as "degrading toward ugly women". ...of course ugly women have as much political power these days as "middle aged white male executives"; so to remain in a position like apple means bowing to the opinions or people who read either "Fortune" or "Sexless Hag" magazine. (maybe both)

When he "exercises his freedom of speech" it's always a marathon.

No one can Wall O'Text like B. Hassle.

I'm wondering the same thing myself. I use Sumatra instead which is a far more stripped down reader. My instincts tell me that I'm safer because it doesn't have all of the integration (java etc) but I'd love to see some comparisons.

Is that the movie that appears in the video for Metallica's One?

Yeah, mine too. My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"

I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."

and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"

{ Pardon the double-post, browsing past the first one just looks like I'm saying "dur-hur me too!". I prefer to be seen as in idiot for the proper reasons, not because of the way slashdot blurbs me. }

Yeah, mine too.
My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"

I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."

and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"

Numbered DIRECTIONS are different than numbered QUESTIONS.

So in conclusion, numbering (like slashdot comments) is either considered in context OR you're doing it wrong.