You can't own *ideas*, you can't treat *ideas* as IP, you can't copyright *ideas*, you can't patent *ideas*.
You can do the first two in your list, but not the last two. You can do those first two things via trade secret. Note that for the second thing, I am using the general concept of IP rather than any legal definition of it. More specifically, it is like: "I know something that you don't, na na!
The goal of copyright and patent supporters is to prevent systems like the internet from being founded.
What an assinine thing to say. Where do all these "entitled" twits wanting to get something for nothing come from?
The copy of copyright and patent supporters is to prevent systems like the internet from being founded. This is a great example: were the important protocols and general structure patented, what you know of as the internet would not have been delayed or more expensive, it would have never existed. It is quite obvious that the greater good is of no concern to IP supporters, only their own profits. Yet these people are still given free rein of our legal system and allowed by the weak minded to claim that copyright and patent infringement is "theft," while the real theft is that of the copyright and patent holders from society as a whole. It's time that stop, before the next big innovation is prevented. End these archaic systems this decade, support the abolition of imaginary property.
Just say no to mind rape.
The web is indeed probably the best example of a miracle of the commons, where everyone using non-rivalrous goods builds a larger, greater ecosystem that would otherwise be possible.
A.K.A., A tremendously inefficient use of resources. (It was and is otherwise possible, by the way).
You never know the full effect of legislation until it hits the courts.
"God save us all" if we have to rely on "the courts" for guidance. Been there, done that, wouldn't trust 'em as far as I can throw 'em.
When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.
