In an answer to a previous question, you expressed concern that inventors are not fairly paid for their work because most, if not all, of the profit from inventions goes to the companies that employ them. This concern seems to be valid insofar as most people who are skilled in science and technology work for companies or universities, which generally require employees to sign "assignment of invention" agreements. To the extent that IV is intended to free inventors from the need to "sign away" the economic value of their inventions in exchange for a steady job, how does IV plan to change this traditional bargain? Under your vision of an "economically ideal" situation for patents, would inventors work for IV as opposed to traditional employers? Would IV fund independent research by inventors in exchange for a fraction of subsequent patent licensing fees? I'd like to know what concrete arrangements you have in mind.

Given that piracy tends to reduce the incentive to create new works, an equally relevant question is the number of works that would have been created but for the effects of piracy. An artist may abandon a good idea simply because he or she believes that piracy will make it impossible to recoup the costs of turning that idea into reality.

Students face a distinctly un-level playing field when it comes to the admissions essay. I don't mean to be cynical, but I've noticed that these essays often read like professionally written short stories. If anything, schools need to impose greater transparency on the essay-writing process. Otherwise, those who come from families that can afford to spend inordinate amounts on outside "help" will have a significant and unfair advantage over everyone else.