Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: red jinn who wrote (2771)	6/19/1999 3:38:00 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Hey, red jinn, the last time you posted here was in April when you corrected my literary reference. Now you pop up with an outstanding post about the origins of American ipr. You're just the type of threadmate I was referring to when I wrote Today we have dozens of regulars, some very vocal (like me) but many more who prefer a low profile until the conversation touches their area of expertise. It's great to see you are still reading the thread and posting when your knowledge is needed. Frank

To: red jinn who wrote (2771)	6/19/1999 4:57:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

that is the genesis of our intellectual property laws Interesting that you should mention that, red. I took a year long course in 1974 called "The Theory of Primary Property", that deals with ideas as the most important property of all. For instance, The use of reason, and the view of this world as reality, is the primary property of Aristotle. These are the basic ideas that the enlightenment brought back, and were used to found this country. The way I look at it, this country is "Running on Aristotle"!

To: red jinn who wrote (2771)	6/19/1999 10:54:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 54805

red jinn, A fascinating post. Off the beaten path of investment rhetoric. Thanks for sharing it with us. --Mike Buckley

To: red jinn who wrote (2771)	6/20/1999 6:04:00 PM
From: mauser96	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

OTOTOT..I'm not a lawyer, but there seems to be a subtle protector of rights in the body of the constitution itself in the doctrine of separation of powers, a very radical concept for the time. This was intended to insure a weak central government which would not have the power to interfere too much with personal freedom. Furthermore, the constitution was agreed to only with the promise that a bill of rights would follow. When they ratified the constitution Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire made it clear that they expected a bill of rights to protect the people and the states from the federal government. In some states the vote for ratification was very close... In New York the vote was yeas 30, nays 27. If there had not been the promise of a bill of rights NY would likely have voted no. What a remarkable document . No country was ever founded by a more wise and gifted set of men. George Washington turned down the chance to be king. Can you imagine that being the response of any of our recent presidents? Bill Clinton ?