✖️ Вiggеst wеаlth trаnsfеr in US histоry stаrting nоw? – August 15

✖️ See the truth HERE. [Cross Market Review]( At Cross Market Review, we are serious about being your “eyes and ears” for special opportunities for you to take advantage of. The message below from one of our partners is one we think you should take a close look at. [--------------][--------------] Motivation and justification[edit] The main purpose of intellectual property law is to encourage the creation of a wide variety of intellectual goods for consumers.[9] To achieve this, the law gives people and businesses property rights to the information and intellectual goods they create, usually for a limited period of time. Because they can then profit from them, this gives economic incentive for their creation.[9] The intangible nature of intellectual property presents difficulties when compared with traditional property like land or goods. Unlike traditional property, intellectual property is indivisible – an unlimited number of people can "consume" an intellectual good without it being depleted. Additionally, investments in intellectual goods suffer from problems of appropriation – while a landowner can surround their land with a robust fence and hire armed guards to protect it, a producer of information or an intellectual good can usually do very little to stop their first buyer from replicating it and selling it at a lower price. Balancing rights so that they are strong enough to encourage the creation of information and intellectual goods but not so strong that they prevent their wide use is the primary focus of modern intellectual property law.[12] By exchanging limited exclusive rights for disclosure of inventions and creative works, society and the patentee/copyright owner mutually benefit, and an incentive is created for inventors and authors to create and disclose their work. Some commentators have noted that the objective of intellectual property legislators and those who support its implementation appears to be "absolute protection". "If some intellectual property is desirable because it encourages innovation, they reason, more is better. The thinking is that creators will not have sufficient incentive to invent unless they are legally entitled to capture the full social value of their inventions".[23] This absolute protection or full value view treats intellectual property as another type of "real" property, typically adopting its law and rhetoric. Other recent developments in intellectual property law, such as the America Invents Act, stress international harmonization. Recently there has also been much debate over the desirability of using intellectual property rights to protect cultural heritage, including intangible ones, as well as over risks of commodification derived from this possibility.[43] The issue still remains open in legal scholarship. Financial incentive[edit] These exclusive rights allow intellectual property owners to benefit from the property they have created, providing a financial incentive for the creation of an investment in intellectual property, and, in case of patents, pay associated research and development costs.[44] In the United States Article I Section 8 Clause 8 of the Constitution, commonly called the Patent and Copyright Clause, reads; "The Congress shall have power 'To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'"[45] ”Some commentators, such as David Levine and Michele Boldrin, dispute this justification.[46] In 2013 the United States Patent & Trademark Office approximated that the worth of intellectual property to the U.S. economy is more than US $5 trillion and creates employment for an estimated 18 million American people. The value of intellectual property is considered similarly high in other developed nations, such as those in the European Union.[47] In the UK, IP has become a recognised asset class for use in pension-led funding and other types of business finance. However, in 2013, the UK Intellectual Property Office stated: "There are millions of intangible business assets whose value is either not being leveraged at all, or only being leveraged inadvertently".[48] Economic growth[edit] The WIPO treaty and several related international agreements underline that the protection of intellectual property rights is essential to maintaining economic growth. The WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook gives two reasons for intellectual property laws: One is to give statutory expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations. The second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development.[49] The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) states that "effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is critical to sustaining economic growth across all industries and globally".[50] Economists estimate that two-thirds of the value of large businesses in the United States can be traced to intangible assets.[51] "IP-intensive industries" are estimated to generate 72% more value added (price minus material cost) per employee than "non-IP-intensive industries".[52][dubious – discuss] A joint research project of the WIPO and the United Nations University measuring the impact of IP systems on six Asian countries found "a positive correlation between the strengthening of the IP system and subsequent economic growth."[53] Dear concerned citizen, Ever heard of America’s “Doomsday Deal”? I firmly believe… In 2003, when US special forces dragged Saddam Hussein out of a stinking Iraqi hole… [It was to defend this deal](. Eight years later, when a US Predator drone took out the convoy of Libyan dictator Mohamar Gaddafi… …and Gaddafi was then dragged into the street by rebel soldiers… …sodomized with a bayonet… …and executed on site… [It was to defend this deal](. Morality[edit] According to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author".[54] Although the relationship between intellectual property and human rights is complex,[55] there are moral arguments for intellectual property. The arguments that justify intellectual property fall into three major categories. Personality theorists believe intellectual property is an extension of an individual. Utilitarians believe that intellectual property stimulates social progress and pushes people to further innovation. Lockeans argue that intellectual property is justified based on deservedness and hard work.[56] Various moral justifications for private property can be used to argue in favor of the morality of intellectual property, such as: Natural Rights/Justice Argument: this argument is based on Locke's idea that a person has a natural right over the labour and products which are produced by their body. Appropriating these products is viewed as unjust. Although Locke had never explicitly stated that natural right applied to products of the mind,[57] it is possible to apply his argument to intellectual property rights, in which it would be unjust for people to misuse another's ideas.[58] Locke's argument for intellectual property is based upon the idea that laborers have the right to control that which they create. They argue that we own our bodies which are the laborers, this right of ownership extends to what we create. Thus, intellectual property ensures this right when it comes to production. Utilitarian-Pragmatic Argument: according to this rationale, a society that protects private property is more effective and prosperous than societies that do not. Innovation and invention in 19th century America has been attributed to the development of the patent system.[59] By providing innovators with "durable and tangible return on their investment of time, labor, and other resources", intellectual property rights seek to maximize social utility.[60] The presumption is that they promote public welfare by encouraging the "creation, production, and distribution of intellectual works".[60] Utilitarians argue that without intellectual property there would be a lack of incentive to produce new ideas. Systems of protection such as Intellectual property optimize social utility. "Personality" Argument: this argument is based on a quote from Hegel: "Every man has the right to turn his will upon a thing or make the thing an object of his will, that is to say, to set aside the mere thing and recreate it as his own".[61] European intellectual property law is shaped by this notion that ideas are an "extension of oneself and of one's personality".[62] Personality theorists argue that by being a creator of something one is inherently at risk and vulnerable for having their ideas and designs stolen and/or altered. Intellectual property protects these moral claims that have to do with personality. Lysander Spooner (1855) argues "that a man has a natural and absolute right—and if a natural and absolute, then necessarily a perpetual, right—of property, in the ideas, of which he is the discoverer or creator; that his right of property, in ideas, is intrinsically the same as, and stands on identically the same grounds with, his right of property in material things; that no distinction, of principle, exists between the two cases".[63] Writer Ayn Rand argued in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal that the protection of intellectual property is essentially a moral issue. The belief is that the human mind itself is the source of wealth and survival and that all property at its base is intellectual property. To violate intellectual property is therefore no different morally than violating other property rights which compromises the very processes of survival and therefore constitutes an immoral act.[64] Infringement, misappropriation, and enforcement[edit] Main article: Intellectual property infringement Violation of intellectual property rights, called "infringement" with respect to patents, copyright, and trademarks, and "misappropriation" with respect to trade secrets, may be a breach of civil law or criminal law, depending on the type of intellectual property involved, jurisdiction, and the nature of the action. As of 2011, trade in counterfeit copyrighted and trademarked works was a $600 billion industry worldwide and accounted for 5–7% of global trade.[65] During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, IP has been a consideration in punishment of the aggressor through trade sanctions,[66] has been proposed as a method to prevent future wars of aggression involving nuclear weapons,[67] and has caused concern about stifling innovation by keeping patent information secret.[68] Patent infringement[edit] Main article: Patent infringement Patent infringement typically is caused by using or selling a patented invention without permission from the patent holder, i.e. from the patent owner. The scope of the patented invention or the extent of protection[69] is defined in the claims of the granted patent. There is safe harbor in many jurisdictions to use a patented invention for research. This safe harbor does not exist in the US unless the research is done for purely philosophical purposes, or to gather data to prepare an application for regulatory approval of a drug.[70] In general, patent infringement cases are handled under civil law (e.g., in the United States) but several jurisdictions incorporate infringement in criminal law also (for example, Argentina, China, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea).[71] In fact, this deal is so vital to our country’s wealth and security… Every President for 50 years has defended it at all costs. Until Calamity Joe Biden. [Biden broke the deal](. And I now predict… The America we love is doomed. And the biggest wealth transfer in US history is now underway. >>[See the truth about Biden’s terrible mistake HERE](. –Jim Rickards Economist; Former Advisor to the CIA and Pentagon P.S. How do I know so much about the Doomsday Deal? Because, in 1974, in a secret meeting at the White House, [I helped build the blasted thing](. I’ll show you everything you need to know – including how to protect your money – when you [click here now](. Copyright infringement[edit] Main article: Copyright infringement Copyright infringement is reproducing, distributing, displaying or performing a work, or to make derivative works, without permission from the copyright holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing or assigned by the work's creator. It is often called "piracy".[72] In the United States, while copyright is created the instant a work is fixed, generally the copyright holder can only get money damages if the owner registers the copyright.[73] Enforcement of copyright is generally the responsibility of the copyright holder.[74] The ACTA trade agreement, signed in May 2011 by the United States, Japan, Switzerland, and the EU, and which has not entered into force, requires that its parties add criminal penalties, including incarceration and fines, for copyright and trademark infringement, and obligated the parties to actively police for infringement.[65][75] There are limitations and exceptions to copyright, allowing limited use of copyrighted works, which does not constitute infringement. Examples of such doctrines are the fair use and fair dealing doctrine. Trademark infringement[edit] Main article: Trademark infringement Trademark infringement occurs when one party uses a trademark that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services of the other party. In many countries, a trademark receives protection without registration, but registering a trademark provides legal advantages for enforcement. Infringement can be addressed by civil litigation and, in several jurisdictions, under criminal law.[65][75] Trade secret misappropriation[edit] Main article: Trade secret § Misappropriation Trade secret misappropriation is different from violations of other intellectual property laws, since by definition trade secrets are secret, while patents and registered copyrights and trademarks are publicly available. In the United States, trade secrets are protected under state law, and states have nearly universally adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The United States also has federal law in the form of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1839), which makes the theft or misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime. This law contains two provisions criminalizing two sorts of activity. The first, 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a), criminalizes the theft of trade secrets to benefit foreign powers. The second, 18 U.S.C. § 1832, criminalizes their theft for commercial or economic purposes. (The statutory penalties are different for the two offenses.) In Commonwealth common law jurisdictions, confidentiality and trade secrets are regarded as an equitable right rather than a property right but penalties for theft are roughly the same as in the United States.[citation needed] Criticisms[edit] Further information: Criticism of patents and Opposition to copyright It has been suggested that this article should be split into a new article titled Criticism of intellectual property. (discuss) (June 2021) Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006 "Copying is not theft!" badge with a character resembling Mickey Mouse in reference to the "in popular culture" rationale behind the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 The term "intellectual property"[edit] Criticism of the term intellectual property ranges from discussing its vagueness and abstract overreach to direct contention to the semantic validity of using words like property and rights in fashions that contradict practice and law. Many detractors think this term specially serves the doctrinal agenda of parties opposing reform in the public interest or otherwise abusing related legislations, and that it disallows intelligent discussion about specific and often unrelated aspects of copyright, patents, trademarks, etc.[76] Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman argues that, although the term intellectual property is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a "bias" by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to "property rights".[77] Stallman advocates referring to copyrights, patents and trademarks in the singular and warns against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term. He argues that, "to avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of 'intellectual property'."[78] Similarly, economists Boldrin and Levine prefer to use the term "intellectual monopoly" as a more appropriate and clear definition of the concept, which, they argue, is very dissimilar from property rights.[79] They further argued that "stronger patents do little or nothing to encourage innovation", mainly explained by its tendency to create market monopolies, thereby restricting further innovations and technology transfer.[80] On the assumption that intellectual property rights are actual rights, Stallman says that this claim does not live to the historical intentions behind these laws, which in the case of copyright served as a censorship system, and later on, a regulatory model for the printing press that may have benefited authors incidentally, but never interfered with the freedom of average readers.[81] Still referring to copyright, he cites legal literature such as the United States Constitution and case law to demonstrate that the law is meant to be an optional and experimental bargain to temporarily trade property rights and free speech for public, not private, benefits in the form of increased artistic production and knowledge. He mentions that "if copyright were a natural right nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time".[82] Law professor, writer and political activist Lawrence Lessig, along with many other copyleft and free software activists, has criticized the implied analogy with physical property (like land or an automobile). They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is generally rivalrous while intellectual works are non-rivalrous (that is, if one makes a copy of a work, the enjoyment of the copy does not prevent enjoyment of the original).[83][84] Other arguments along these lines claim that unlike the situation with tangible property, there is no natural scarcity of a particular idea or information: once it exists at all, it can be re-used and duplicated indefinitely without such re-use diminishing the original. Stephan Kinsella has objected to intellectual property on the grounds that the word "property" implies scarcity, which may not be applicable to ideas.[85] Entrepreneur and politician Rickard Falkvinge and hacker Alexandre Oliva have independently compared George Orwell's fictional dialect Newspeak to the terminology used by intellectual property supporters as a linguistic weapon to shape public opinion regarding copyright debate and DRM.[86][87] [Cross Market Review]( We are reaching out to you because you have shown interest in Financial Content by filling out one of our sign-up forms or pages. [Privacy Policy]( | [Terms & Conditions]( Email sent by Finance and Investing Traffic, LLC, owner and operator of Cross Market Review (CMR) This ad is sent on behalf of Paradigm Press, LLC, at 808 St. Paul Street, Baltimore MD 21202. If you're not interested in this opportunity from Paradigm Press, LLC, please [click here]( to remove your email from these offers. This offer is brought to you by Cross Market Review. 221 W 9th St # Wilmington, DE 19801. If you would like to unsubscribe from receiving offers brought to you by Cross Market Review [click here](. If you have any questions or concerns, our support team is always available to assist you. Please don’t hesitate [to reach out to us](mailto:support@crossmarketreview.com) whenever you need help. For the case of security questions, please contact us at abuse@crossmarketreview.com. [Whitelisting us]( is the simplest way to keep up with the latest news and trends in the world of investing. Copyright © 2023 Cross Market Review. All rights reserved[.]( [Unsubscribe]( [Cross Market Review](