Strong patent protection is a characteristic of the steepest technology jump in human history. The 20th century saw technological innovation increase exponentially, frequently driven by well-funded R&D departments at large corporations. They would not have developed these things without patent protection because it would put them out of business. I have never heard a plausible explanation of how a company that spends a billion dollars developing a technology can compete if their competitors can undersell them simply because they don't have to recoup the R&D budget.

And while the Constitution does not mandate copyright and patent laws, it does legitimize it, removing the argument that implementing them is violative of free speech.

There's no proof that they aren't. And legally they are enshrined in the Constitution.

That would be horrific to the parties involved; someone trying to recover under a contract in New York should have to go to Hawaii? Litigation is expensive enough without multiplying the cost like that.

"The point of the patent system (as I understand it at least) is to ensure that information doesn't get lost."

Nah, the purpose of the patent system is to encourage invention.

"Since we can't test for obviousness, both the patent office and the courts have decided to ignore obviousness, thus destroying any possible usefulness of a patent system."

That doesn't really compute there. You're assuming both that patents never work without things going to litigation, that when they are litigated that it's only about "obviousness," and that in every patent case (the vast majority of which I am sure you are unfamiliar with) the courts "ignore" obviousness.

Interesting! I had the opposite situation; read Neuromancer a couple of times but tried Cryptonomicon twice and just couldn't get through it. Just found it tedious.

I used to swing back and forth between Windows and Linux, but honestly the past few years it's been all Windows. Windows 7 and Windows 8 are actually decent OSes, plus they run the software I need and the games and media that I want.

I also blame sysadmins who frequently don't understand that security is contextual; you do not need the same level of password complexity for a gardening forum or slashdot that you need for your bank account. But you still see ridiculous requirements for low-security sites.

This should convince anyone that open source linux software can compete with windows, given 22 years.

Actually voiding a contract is a term of art in the law and refers to a court finding that a valid contract never existed. Just because the terms were never fulfilled doesn't mean the contract didn't exist; the contract isn't the completed transaction, it's essentially a binding promise on both parties to perform. Just because performance wasn't made doesn't mean the promise never existed.

Arguing that the contract is void is basically trying to say that the promise never existed, and is a defense by the breaching party to invalidate the contract (and thus not be responsible for fulfilling its terms), not the plaintiff in a breach of contract action.

"We have grown dependent on freebies and handouts as our government tries to "domesticate" its citizenry into the role of owned beasts of burden."

What freebies and handouts would these be? By developed nation standards we do not spend that much on social welfare programs.

No, there was consideration, and the contract was valid -- KlearGear just breached it.

Ehh, sort of. A contract certainly existed because the consideration was memorialized in the order form, any email receipt, etc. There was just a breach.

Actually, that's a breach. Voiding a contract and breaching a contract are two different things.

No, it doesn't have that clause, and the UN is not free to operate, spy, arrest, or even kill anyone in the US. Just completely false.