For such things, than 20 or 50 years is too short. If the government's rules and regulations delay (but not prevent) the sale of a product, all such patents should start from the day the product is legally approved for sale.

The basic idea of having drug patents start from the date of invention rather than the date of first legal sale is itself ridiculous. Worse, the idea of just 'extending' the patent length for them is pretty stupid, but the absolute WORST idea is to design the rules for ALL products based on this one industry. The only reason it is not done reasonable is because then non-medical community loves to use the problems with medical patents as an excuse to grab money for non-medical patents.

Your belief, while common, demonstrates general ignorance of economic theory.

First and foremost, most businesses do not make decisions about where to build factories, etc. on taxes. Otherwise NYC and California would be economic backwaters, rather than the powerhouses they are.

Note, corporate headquarters is different, I am talking about manufacturing factories and customer facilities for sports.

Sports stadiums are NEVER built based on tax rules, they are ALWAYS built based on customer location. It doesn't matter what the tax rules are, a stadium will be in NYC. It doesn't matter how much cash Boise City, Idaho offers, no national sports team will ever call them home. They are just too small a market

As for factories, the far majority of the time, taxes are such a small consideration, compared to prevailing wages, cost of real estate, cost of water, cost of power, skill level of local population, etc. etc. that taxes will almost NEVER be the deciding factor.

This is mainly true because despite conservative propaganda, actual, real corporate taxes in the US are very low. In addition, where it is a factor, it is FEDERAL tax that matters, not the State Tax. As such, states simply can not offer enough of a 'tax break' to bring a business to their state.

The weakening of patent protections mean some small guys will be killed.

Particularly small patent holders that present ideas to big companies, hoping to be bought out, but instead get the shaft.

Honestly, the real problem is that patents last too long.

If you can't make your profit in 5 years, then your product was never very good in the first place. In that time, you should be able to 'corner the market', develop a brand - including the reputation for quality, and most importantly, learn business secrets that will give you a leg up against the competition.

After that time, you are just holding back other people from improving your product.

Perhaps we need a graduated patent system. Most patents would get 5 years, particularly impressive products get 10 years, and entirely new products that create new types of businesses/industries get 20 years. That is, an improvement to a cellphone gets 5 years, but the creation of a cell phone gets 20 years.

Once the laws stop the practice from working against American citizens, it should quickly vanish and future Canadians will not suffer the same problem.

My solution is not perfect, but good enough, and as such is more likely to get passed into law.

I don't find that to be a similar case

The universities are hiring the professors, the professors would not work if they did not get paid by the state. Passing a law about two parts of an organization not competing for the individual is a very questionable act.

In my case, the states are BRIBING companies and sports teams that would still work if they were not being paid by the state, they would simply work elsewhere. The companies are not supposed to be paid by the states, they are supposed to get money from their customers.

My law is about stopping governments from bribing people, where the law you are talking about is stopping governments from competing with each other.

Not the legal protections (those are fine), I mean the monetary incentives.

They are anti-competitive, and bad for the economy.

Frankly, the federal government should put a user fee on them at a prohibitive rate - i.e. 50%, paid out of the money given.

That is, if a state wishes to give a benefit worth $100 million to a company, that company owes $50 million paid immediately.

These things are usually paid to convince someone to build X in Y state, rather than Z state. It is almost never paid to get something built inside the USA, rather than outside the USA.

As such, any benefit to that particular state is outweighed by the loss to another state.

It is even worse when it comes to sports teams. Then, usually the teams make out like a bandit without in any way increasing the economy of the state (in particular, big cities will always get sports teams, even if the city refuses to build a stadium, because the city is where the CUSTOMERS for sports teams live. People in NYC are not going to suddenly decided to root for and see baseball in New Jersey if the Yankees and Mets leave the city. Not even if the stadium is build in Hoboken. Instead, some other team will build a stadium in New York, earn a ton of money from New Yorkers coming to them, then buy good players and suddenly everyone will be rooting for the NYC Metros, or whatever they call themselves (just like New Yorkers don't still root for the Dodgers, after all.)

You don't need to be greedy. Simply requiring the law enforcement to pay interest and to pay attorney fees should be sufficient.

Most of the problems are caused by small local communities using unfair seizure laws to fund their own community/special benefits.

Similarly, 99% of the problem could be stopped if they cancelled the Equitable Sharing program and instead insisted that all such seizures to go to the federal government, not to any local fund.

If you read the article, the scientists are not converting energy into matter.

Instead, they have caused some photons to be entangled so that they gain some of the properties of "liquid or solids". Not all the properties, not even the properties of a crystal, instead some of the properties of 'liquid or solid"

This article is just about one of the worst dumming down of science I have read. It was built up to sound 'click worthy', mainly be ignoring the actual research. They don't even use the word "entangled".

That is, the library should be able to create a dedicated l-e-book (library e-book) that has no USB or other input/output port.

The only way to access it would be via wireless, and it would have proprietary software that can use an open internet connection to go to the libraries specific website and search/download/erase books.

This prevents people from copying or 'stealing' (quotes there for a reason people) information, but would allow the same functionality that a normal lending library allows. The books could have automatic erasure programmed into the library-reader, after 2 weeks

You fail to understand the difference between spot detection and permanent detection.

If you sample one out of every 100 cars, all you are really doing is determining if a problem exists, not actually fixing the problem. Not even if you fix the randomly selected problem cars. You still need a separate program to analyze the manufacturing problems causing the defects then fix the problem, if it exists.

But having someone check ALL the cards, allows you to remove the bad ones and fix them before you sell them. You don't actually need a separate program, because your analysis IS the fix.

Similarly, a constant video recording program is the solution to the problem we detected by using random video recordings. Random recordings allow problems to flourish between the recordings. Constant recordings do not have this issue.

The fact that random recording don't fix the problem is no surprise, and constant recordings are qualitatively different so your argument is flawed.

To make sure that NYC is not Ferguson.

He has a couple of "meet the police" fairs, which I never saw before.

He has done everything right that Ferguson did wrong.

Now, the NYC police is not perfect, but at least they are actively attempting to do a better job, rather than attempting to prove how 'tough' they are.

The police have a hard job and the violent nature of their business tends to make certain foolish people think their job is to be as powerful as possible.

Glad to see that NYC is moving in the right direction.

So we should invade countries that like America?

Are you a fool?

Of course we choose to invade our enemies, not our friends.

Iraq was a bad war, but it was bad because there was no real reason to do it. That is why we didn't accomplish anything with the war.

The fact that the people did not like us was not relevant.

Your opinions might be more popular if you scrape off the foolishness you precede it with.

By making sure that small government totally blocks business!

That's how it's supposed to work, right?

1) Never trust a civilian that says "these weapons you want are not very effective or what you need". He is not trained or capable to make that argument. It's like a mathematician saying he doesn't believe in global warming, or a priest saying he doesn't believe in evolution. 2) You can boil down his argument to what I originally said -"these weapons are good at killing people"