ndefinite

Kinsella, a legal professional in the area of IP in the US, covers the legal and historical context surrounding IP and comes to similar conclusions. In short, he concludes, you cannot have Intellectual Property rights without restricting someone else's Physical Property rights; IP is fundamentally at odds with Physical Property rights.

True to form, his book is available for free in digital formats: http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Propert...

And audio: http://blog.mises.org/11717/against-intellectual-property-au...

EDIT: clarified that Kinsella is a lawyer and knows this subject well

I got minus'd a point for that? I still agree though. The first thing that comes to mind when I think of the "elite" spatially intelligent are professional athletes and race car drivers.

Value is subjective and some fields value traits that vary from what is valued in other fields.

To be a successful mathematician, you don't need to be particularly capable when it comes to spacial intelligence. The article highlights concerns but reality is different; the statistical analysis I conduct in a day requires very little spacial intelligence. The most productive athletes in my city do require a superior level of spacial intelligence and they are compensated incredibly well for their contributions (paid more in a year than I am likely to be paid in may entire career).

Agreed!

As far as the legality goes I would assume LinkedIn gets to decide. It's a 3rd party service, I haven't read their TOS but I'm assuming they own everything and merely permit users to use their service. Sure there are terms but legal ownership is LinkedIn's.

Curious to see how LinkedIn handles the account that's actually been taken over and replaced with a new name. I doubt the idea of one person building a network and then selling the packaged contacts to another person fits at all with LinkedIn's plans for the future. The last think LinkedIn needs right now is people to start goldfarming.

My employer has a non-compete clause. It's not specific to the industry, I'm permitted to leave and work in the field. What I'm not permitted to do within the two year term is work with the same clients.

I can keep my linked in Rolodex but I have to look for new leads for the first two years.

In the industry I'm in, the clause is boilerplate at this point.

As an employee I don't like it, as a potential employer I'll be including the clause

wow, I like it more: http://shire-reckoning.com/calendar.

We're already used to stat holidays; "Days of Yule" are much less intrusive than leap weeks

Yeah the week long adjustment every so often seems excessive

wait, is it? The link I pasted was them commenting about the GPU but I can't find a reference anywhere saying whether or not the PCB design is open or closed source

I was going to disagree with you but you might have a point, it's not open source: http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs#comment-2220

What's wrong with "the world" and what's wrong with working for "the government" are two different things.

I agree with you. I stopped reading at

"almost without exception, economists since Adam Smith have viewed economic systems as being in balance or equilibrium, and as having a natural tendency to return there after any disturbance. In this view, crises can be understood only as anomalies, the consequences of unusual outside shocks."

That quote shows a huge lack of contextual knowledge. A more accurate quote could be that since BEFORE Adam Smith Economists have disagreed on this point. (Menger/Walras, Rothbard/Schumpeter etc etc etc)

Low blow.

Recommending that I don't sell food to the poor for "profit" is the same difference. I have to feed my family too and without making a profit I have no time to spend feeding the poor, so I don't.

The assumption of the free market that you refer to is specifically: no coercion occurs (it's not "your" assumption I understand that, but it is the necessary prerequisite of a free market). If that specific condition is not met it's not a free market transaction. The free market is not some imaginary utopia, it's what happens when two non coerced people trade. If you add coercion, free market theories don't apply because there is no free market.

It's not a free market transaction if the poor are robbed. It's not a free market transaction if fraud occurs. To be a free market transaction both parties have to voluntarily execute the contract; most times a simple verbal one like I do when I hand over my money for groceries.

Being sick does not mean coercion occurs. It's unfortunate and it would be great if someone could help for free. But it's even better that there are trained professionals who can make a living helping the sick as they can refine their skill set over an entire lifetime. To do this however, they have to turn a profit otherwise the activity is unsustainable; they too need to feed their families and can't dedicate 100% of their time to helping others without charge. Again this assumes no coercion, which unfortunately these conditions do not exist in North America; government regulation in healthcare by its very definition means coercion of healthcare providers by the government, under penalty of force and arrest for non compliance.

"To the grumbler who complains about the unfairness of the market system only one piece of advice can be given: If you want to acquire wealth, then try to satisfy the public by offering them something that is cheaper or which they like better. Try to supersede Pinkapinka by mixing another beverage. Equality under the law gives you the power to challenge every millionaire. In a market not sabotaged by government-imposed restrictions it is exclusively your fault if you do not outstrip the chocolate king, the movie star and the boxing champion." - Ludwig von Mises, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality

Giving the poor something better and cheaper cannot be immoral by any definition of the word. If you are charging "too much" then why can't a competitor come in and undercut your outrageously high prices?

Sorry but if you're hungry the rational thing to do is to acquire food. If you're sick the rational thing to do is to assess your options for immediate help. I use the word immediate here intentionally.

You're referring to difference in rationality but these are actually differences in time preference. A starving person prefers food NOW while someone who is well fed can wait a little longer and wait for a good deal to come by.

If you're on death's door, then long term financial planning is not a rational choice. Long term financial planning is probably the worst choice they can make as they'd be dead before any dividends are paid.

The poor are not coerced into buying food, they are making a choice and their choices meet an immediate need.

Recommending that people don't sell the poor food or that we never lend the poor money, what in immoral thing to say.

The Reuters graphic intentionally confuses. Mike Bostock (D3.js creator) has made a much more clear graphic: http://bl.ocks.org/1153292

Like the concept but kind of sketches me out that they're that good at running systems in RAM after reading about how stuxnet does exactly that. Take a little give a little I guess

Stephan Kinsella makes a pretty compelling argument that's hard to refute: http://blog.mises.org/11717/against-intellectual-property-au...

Just because someone beat me to the patent office legally means I'm not permitted think up the same idea and use my computer to do the same. It's not even about copying, I'm legally limited in what I'm permitted to think up and do.