Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess just give up and let the government run the world and continue to cry waaaaaaaaa not fair right jojan?? Maybe the occupy loons will pay your retainer fee? lol
If your "idea" is big enough to garner patent infringement lawsuits then I don't think you will have much of a problem finding a lawyer to take your battle onward. They want to make money too. You just go on and cry woe is me I'm at the mercy of the evil rich and let others try and join that evil one percent. The only think stopping you if you want to get there is yourself. If your happy where you are then stop crying. I'm happy and I don't. If I weren't happy and my life revolved around being rich then I'd bust my butt to get there I'd guess. I surely wouldn't be crying about how nothing is fair.
This is a naive answer lacking a grasp of reality and facts.
Quote:
So you're facing a patent lawsuit. Or maybe you want to sue someone. Get out your checkbook, because this isn't going to be cheap.
Quote:
A survey conducted last year by the American Intellectual Property Law Association to find median litigation costs for patent infringement suits produced jaw-dropping (at least for a startup) numbers: For a claim that could be worth less than a $1 million, median legal costs are $650,000. When $1 million to $25 million is considered "at risk," total litigation costs can hit $2.5 million. For a claim over $25 million, median legal costs are $5 million.
Quote:
For small companies, however, simply fighting a patent suit can be financially ruinous. That's why many are willing to settle, even if they believe they did nothing wrong. It can be cheaper to settle a case or agree to licensing terms for, say, $100,000, rather than fight, said Christopher Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, an investment banking firm that focuses on intellectual property. Seems unfair, but often heading into the courtroom is a roll of the dice.
Can't handle the truth eh? No skin off my back. Continue on with your evil rich mantra like many others do which will get you nowhere.
Nope, we are going to find a realistic way for equal opportunity for all......not just for the wealthy. Equal opportunity is what made America great. An Aristocratic society is a dead end.
That's what we have today. Obama chooses to bail out one company but not another. Perfect Crony Capitalism.
Egad, my statement must come off as incredibly vague, because this is exactly what I was trying to convey. The collusion of government authority and specific corporate interests is and has been our economic model for a long time now and the fact that people refer to it as capitalism or a free market would be hilarious if it weren't so intellectually dishonest.
At their core, capitalism and wealth creation are fed by innovation. When a minority of people, especially the older and established, own and accumulate the majority of wealth, and they use that wealth to game the system against everyone else, creativity is limited. Scientific studies have shown that the most original innovations will be initiated in the early 30s. Not exclusively, or course, but the armies of Mark Zuckerbergs and Bill Gates of the world are going to be more innovative than a few guys like Donald Trump.
Who is going to be more "hungry" and creative, a half dozen 60 something billionaires or 60,000 20-30 somethings chasing their first six figure pay check? When wealth aggregates, the genius of America is cut off at the roots. I have nothing against the wealthy, but thinking that making very rich persons richer will rekindle the American economy defies common sense.
We need to enable the young, hungry, and creative.
I think this is a valid point. But what I would add is that we have a problem in the US in that people at all economic levels are gaming the system.
I like what Steve Conover had to say about this:
...If we’re going to have a war, let’s do it right. The battle lines should be drawn orthogonally to the oversimplified “rich versus the rest.” A virtuous war would be one that rewards society’s honest earners and productive contributors, while punishing society’s predators, pirates, and parasites—all without regard to anyone’s income level.
At their core, capitalism and wealth creation are fed by innovation. When a minority of people, especially the older and established, own and accumulate the majority of wealth, and they use that wealth to game the system against everyone else, creativity is limited. Scientific studies have shown that the most original innovations will be initiated in the early 30s. Not exclusively, or course, but the armies of Mark Zuckerbergs and Bill Gates of the world are going to be more innovative than a few guys like Donald Trump.
Who is going to be more "hungry" and creative, a half dozen 60 something billionaires or 60,000 20-30 somethings chasing their first six figure pay check? When wealth aggregates, the genius of America is cut off at the roots. I have nothing against the wealthy, but thinking that making very rich persons richer will rekindle the American economy defies common sense.
We need to enable the young, hungry, and creative.
I think this is a valid point. But what I would add is that we have a problem in the US in that people at all economic levels are gaming the system.
I like what Steve Conover had to say about this:
...If we’re going to have a war, let’s do it right. The battle lines should be drawn orthogonally to the oversimplified “rich versus the rest.” A virtuous war would be one that rewards society’s honest earners and productive contributors, while punishing society’s predators, pirates, and parasites—all without regard to anyone’s income level.
At their core, capitalism and wealth creation are fed by innovation. When a minority of people, especially the older and established, own and accumulate the majority of wealth, and they use that wealth to game the system against everyone else, creativity is limited. Scientific studies have shown that the most original innovations will be initiated in the early 30s. Not exclusively, or course, but the armies of Mark Zuckerbergs and Bill Gates of the world are going to be more innovative than a few guys like Donald Trump.
Who is going to be more "hungry" and creative, a half dozen 60 something billionaires or 60,000 20-30 somethings chasing their first six figure pay check? When wealth aggregates, the genius of America is cut off at the roots. I have nothing against the wealthy, but thinking that making very rich persons richer will rekindle the American economy defies common sense.
We need to enable the young, hungry, and creative.
So with what is written we shoulod be fine with all thsoe hungry young graduates.Just add to the wealthy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
