From insane patents for 'exercising cats' through to 'religious soap' - there are many hilarious and ridiculous examples of patents and trademarks in the US. However, there are also extremely disturbing precedents being set on what can and cannot be 'owned'.
For those who understand that 'all is one', the idea of ownership is mostly nonsensical, however, we all have individual will and can take control of 'things' in our lives in order to achieve goals - thus ownership is valid and very real. However, once we move into owning ideas and thoughts, we cross a line that introduces all manner of huge problems for us.
Owning ideas takes us from a world where ownership is used to overcome and work with scarcity, into a world where the ownership limits that which does not need to be limited. Not only this, it is ultimately done in order to attain wealth, which is a mechanism that is used to control the free will of other people for the benefit of those with the wealth.
So on a fundamental level, 'Intellectual Property' and the ownership of ideas introduce unnecessary limitation of human expression so as to enable those who use this system to control the free will of others. This is a compression system that limits human wellbeing and potential for evolution.
This older video from James Corbett's 'Corbett Report' is a very eye opening exploration of these topics which takes us through numerous rabbit holes that we all really need to understand.
Did you know that a substantial percentage of the genes in the human body was patented by researchers? Thankfully it seems that a 2013 court ruling in the US determined that this was a misuse of the patent system - however, numerous researchers TRIED to do this - showing us who they are and whether or not they value you as an individual (they do not). Examples of problems that this has caused for a time included people being threatened to stop researching cancer cures based on certain genes that were patented!
So, anyone who is convinced that patents and IP are essential to human growth, innovation and economic power should reconsider and carefully think about the points being made in this video!
I highly recommend Stephan Kinsella's short treatise Against Intellectual Property for a thorough dismantling of the entire concept. As a patent attorney, he is uniquely qualified to cover the matter. It's only about 60 pages long.
Thanks, yes, I meant to link his website but overlooked it 👍
There's ongoing issues with this genetic IP. The SCOTUS has denied patents for natural genes, but they have allowed novel genetic sequences to be patented. Now we have CRISPR, an immune system component many bacteria have devised to excise viral DNA that has been transfected into their genomes. There are ways this can be used to excise and transfect genetic sequences into genomes, including human genomes, and also including cDNA and lab created sequences.
In fact the modmRNA medical interventions have been widely reported to transfect a variety of DNA into the genomes of the 'vaccinated' with modmRNA medical devices. I don't believe this source, but I have speculated that SCOTUS could so rule (there is some point at which humans are so modified genetically that they aren't human anymore). SCOTUS could also extend the Monsanto precedent that has established that farmers growing crops containing it's patented genes owed Monsanto royalties - even when Monsanto pollinated those crops with it's patented genes. SCOTUS could extend the exception to slavery in the 13th Amendment so that patent holders could seize the GMO victims of their modmRNA products that transfected patented DNA into their genomes without their knowledge, who did not pay royalties demanded, as their property.
Bill Gates, Moderna, Pfizer, and the USG, all have patents on a lot of genes involved in the modmRNA injections. The USG, already the largest slave owner in the world today (because of that exception in the 13th Amendment that allows governments to hold as slaves people convicted of crimes), is unlikely to defend people from being enslaved by itself, which puts it on the side of the patent holders in this business.
I reckon patents on DNA and similar building blocks of living beings, like mRNA, that can be transfected into living creatures, whether made in the lab or not, need to be unable to be patented, because we plainly observe that this is happening to people today, and will happen to people more in the future.
I don't know how to handle the GMO question. Clearly people are a spectrum and there is no humanity test to determine whether some living creature is a human or not. There will obviously have to be. I don't know where to draw the line, and don't think anyone else does either. However, CRISPR is table top tech (genetically engineering living organisms is actually very easy to do with simple and inexpensive tools on your kitchen table. What is hard and expensive is knowing what genetic engineering to do), and people are already altering their own genes using it, as well as being altered by criminal conspiracies of cruel corporations.
Thanks!