Terrorist Organization Assaults Amish Farmers Over Milk Production

[Mister Earl]

Yet another sign of the megalomaniac government and their abhorrent and clandestine plot to undermine the virtually untapped whole milk market.

... there's just not enough tin foil in the world to make a hat big enough for that to make any kind of sense.

 

[Mister Earl]

The thing about cows' milk is it has problems. The mammary organs of a cow are far from perfect. Whole milk tends to have nasty stuff in it if the cow has medical issues, which can be hard to detect. Blood. Parasites. Bacteria. Standard farmers have to go to extreme measures to assure cleanliness before even collecting the milk, let alone going through pasteurization.

 

[kookbreaker]

because people like to buy stuff?

But I won't see the money. People who I would consider thieves would steal it and make their own knock-offs without the investment of time and resources. I'd have thrown my R&D money into a hole.

crap was invented before State privileged monopolies and crap will be invented after their passing.

You're going to use the painfully slow development of invention prior to the concept of copyrights as a supporting argument?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I prefer to engage in name-calling and propaganda against those who seek to take money from me by force and use it to wage warfare against Amish people.

Please provide proof that there are people that "seek to take money from me by force and use it to wage warfare against Amish people".

 

[The_Animus]

You're going to use the painfully slow development of invention prior to the concept of copyrights as a supporting argument?

Are you saying that it is copyrights, rather than increased population and education, that resulted in a rise of inventions?

Also, everyone out there saying this is necessary for safety, please address my argument concerning alcohol and tobacco. If you insist the government is correct in stopping raw milk production/sale then why do you not insist on government stopping production/sale of alcohol and tobacco?

 

[michaelsuede]

You're going to use the painfully slow development of invention prior to the concept of copyrights as a supporting argument?

One day Apple decided to make a phone with a touch screen interface.

Apple is the first to market and makes gagillions of dollars selling flat screen phones.

Within a year the market is flooded with touch screen phones by every phone manufacturer in the market.

You are telling me that:

1. Apple must not have invented a touch screen phone because clearly by your logic it would be far too costly to invent such a device.

2. If Apple actual did invent such a device, it would certainly be against every consumers best interest if another company actually replicated such technology.

Your logic is flawless.

 

[kookbreaker]

Are you saying that it is copyrights, rather than increased population and education, that resulted in a rise of inventions?

Certainly a raw number of inventions is going to come from those. Some things will be invented by just raw curiosity of some individuals. Calamities (War, ie.) can also bring about invention.

But you tell me why I should invent something when there is nothing to prevent the michaelsuedes from just making a knock-off and using the money he saved not doing R&D on marketing? So far I haven't heard a good answer.

 

[michaelsuede]

Certainly a raw number of inventions is going to come from those. Some things will be invented by just raw curiosity of some individuals. Calamities (War, ie.) can also bring about invention.

But you tell me why I should invent something when there is nothing to prevent the michaelsuedes from just making a knock-off and using the money he saved not doing R&D on marketing? So far I haven't heard a good answer.

Because being first to market with a new technology like Apple's iPhone means you get to make billions?

 

[MG1962]

Your logic is flawless.

So what side of the road do you drive on?

 

[Foolmewunz]

No, the article clearly says otherwise. Maybe you just didn't read it.

Well, no one's read it clearly, apparently.


It's the Washington Times. Michael's other link is to John Stossel.

Meh, I'm reserving my opinion. I'm waiting to see what WND, Alex Jones, Russia Today and Andrew Breitbart have to say on the topic. (I like my news from credible sources, I do.)

 

[michaelsuede]

Well, no one's read it clearly, apparently.


It's the Washington Times. Michael's other link is to John Stossel.

Meh, I'm reserving my opinion. I'm waiting to see what WND, Alex Jones, Russia Today and Andrew Breitbart have to say on the topic. (I like my news from credible sources, I do.)

Jesus Christ the world is coming to an end.

Someone mentioned John Stossel.

The Earth has broken free from its axis and has gone tumbling toward the center of the Sun.

 

[kookbreaker]

One day Apple decided to make a phone with a touch screen interface.

Apple is the first to market and makes gagillions of dollars selling flat screen phones.

Within a year the market is flooded with touch screen phones by every phone manufacturer in the market.

You are telling me that:

1. Apple must not have invented a touch screen phone because clearly by your logic it would be far too costly to invent such a device.

2. If Apple actual did invent such a device, it would certainly be against every consumers best interest if another company actually replicated such technology.

Your logic is flawless.

Very Poor example. Smartphones by themselves are not copyrightable. Your example would not be Android vs. iPhone, but iPhone vs. cheap iPhone knock-off made by michaelsuede where all you did was clone some cheap chips dupe some software and add a little 'MS' next to the Apple logo. By your standards, all that companies rivaling Apple would need to do is do what I described above and use the money they saved cloning rather than developing to out-market Apple.

Further messing up your example is the fact that product release dates do not reflect patent, or concept inception. Android was started in 2003, iPhone development in 2005. You'd have to have to do a lot of work to figure out who came up with what idea first and who just copied (albeit not as blatantly as your example) from the other.

In my case I'm thinking of something different.

 

[michaelsuede]

Very Poor example. Smartphones by themselves are not copyrightable. Your example would not be Android vs. iPhone, but iPhone vs. cheap iPhone knock-off made by michaelsuede where all you did was clone some cheap chips dupe some software and add a little 'MS' next to the Apple logo. By your standards, all that companies rivaling Apple would need to do is do what I described above and use the money they saved cloning rather than developing to out-market Apple.

Further messing up your example is the fact that product release dates do not reflect patent, or concept inception. Android was started in 2003, iPhone development in 2005. You'd have to have to do a lot of work to figure out who came up with what idea first and who just copied (albeit not as blatantly as your example) from the other.

In my case I'm thinking of something different.

Yes, Kearns should have been able to deprive America of windshield wipers because he managed to patent them first.

Clearly the windshield wiper took billions of dollars in research to develop and never would have existed if patents weren't around.

No one EVER would have figured that out if patents weren't there to protect inventors.

 

[kookbreaker]

Because being first to market with a new technology like Apple's iPhone means you get to make billions?

Again, not a good example. Barring a few specially imported knock-offs from China nobody actually duplicated the iPhone in the same manner as your fake Rolex.

 

[michaelsuede]

Again, not a good example. Barring a few specially imported knock-offs from China nobody actually duplicated the iPhone in the same manner as your fake Rolex.

Yeah its a horrible example.

Super complex technologies being developed without secure patent protections.

Clearly this has no bearing at all on your arguments.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Jesus Christ the world is coming to an end.

Someone mentioned John Stossel.

The Earth has broken free from its axis and has gone tumbling toward the center of the Sun.

Don't worry, the Federal Gravity Police will be along to set it right. Just have another cool glass of milk and it'll be fine.

And in case you didn't get the point (I mean, sheesh, I used bold four point font) you report dubious news from dubious sources and get all lathered up about it and wonder why we won't get in line behind your drumming.

I have zero problem with the government regulating food.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yes, Kearns should have been able to deprive America of windshield wipers because he managed to patent them first.

Clearly the windshield wiper took billions of dollars in research to develop and never would have existed if patents weren't around.

No one EVER would have figured that out if patents weren't there to protect inventors.

What a wonderful justification for theft.

 

[michaelsuede]

What a wonderful justification for theft.

Theft would be if someone broke into Apple's corporate office and stole their design documents.

Ingenuity would be taking Apple's phone and coming up with your own design based on their technology.

You can't steal ideas, they are intangible.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yeah its a horrible example.

Super complex technologies being developed without secure patent protections.

Clearly this has no bearing at all on your arguments.

Wait, what? Are you saying that none of the Smartphone manufacturers did any patenting during development?

 

[The_Animus]

Certainly a raw number of inventions is going to come from those. Some things will be invented by just raw curiosity of some individuals. Calamities (War, ie.) can also bring about invention.

But you tell me why I should invent something when there is nothing to prevent the michaelsuedes from just making a knock-off and using the money he saved not doing R&D on marketing? So far I haven't heard a good answer.

Because you hope to get first to market advantage, because you enjoy making things, because you think the world will be better off with this product, because you personally want the product, or to give the product to others.

Humans are creators. We are builders. It's what we do.

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you. Just as copyrights can encourage invention and research, it can also stifle it.