Patent

 

Concept of Theft: Theft is the demand that one’s own work be non-utility for anyone else potentially using said work in a market of individuals, hence it will never be reproduced or given use for any topic, subject, or body. This is among the habit of thieves, who fail to understand how to return revenue under investment of time, hence they limit the scope and utility of their labor in form, review, and time granted into interaction in the marketplace. Thieves fail at the custom of retaining labor and skill for themselves, and practicing their own review in public by functioning at trades as they develop them. In otherwords, a thief demands a copyright, patent, trademark, royalty, or guild mark, all of them increasing modes of economic depravation for the individual carrying out the mark on themselves, therefore growing deeper into poverty and higher into abuse of the common system. The point of patents, all of those above, is to punish thieves, by making their work openly available to the diminishing funds held by the thief, who has placed one of the five conditionals above on their work.

Copyright: The right to copy one’s own work, the necessity of determination if this individual has created something with a safety and hazard warning unique to their skillset. A manual is required to be created alongside the copyright, to employ this work after the death of the copywritten individual, whether held by public custody, or self-body, impossible to remove from common usage, because the work, while possible to remove from sales, is held separate from the manual, the method of creating the work for others on contractual employ from the production of the copywritten good. Hence, common share is a concept in law for copyright, the right to perform labor along those skills built and shared at production stage of workmanship. At this stage of workmanship, the thief has come up with a unique proposition, but requires others to create the proposed project, hence they will all have techniques to spread the observed case report of the product.

Patent: The concept of a particular brand name associated with a variant on a product, a patent is the ability through office’s clerk to produce a brand name on an established method of production. The method of production, cannot match, in component’s form of assembly, a patent already in circulation, and if the circulation ceases, within certain time found reasonable by individual office specialty, the patent is placed up for sale, illegal to be held by one broker or lawyer, hence the patent is then considered nullified in production from being placed outside the office from disuse (hence the term of a patent, a variation on a product in terms of assembly, is defeated, an inferential reasoning necessary to get a technical degree). Since the patent is in a variation of production, an entire product line cannot be patented, it is only the product’s variation itself. Assembled parts, each have a patent to their name, and once the patent is held in monopoly, a circumspected division of common distribution of patented product is placed on the market, to release the patented assembly item from patent, (service), placing the item on public design of goods for acquisition and sales at an assembly business for production back into circulation.

Trademark: A trademark refers to the individual design set of a piece of common non-trademarked good. If a good is trademarked, it has an individual set design, and if it has a relation to another piece within the series of investiture, it has an individual named logo form, a registered piece of art indicating that the series has a marketed culpability to reputation of own finance. This comes with liability, the production stage factory, municipal plant, or house of finance holding the patent having been found accountable to the public for any disgrace to the trademarked product’s distribution and consumption, hence product standards are matched for suits, the previous false however listed in law, the latter the penalty for trademarking a good in market and attempting to limit distribution of good, hence quality of workmanship diminishes in logic of design, industry, and together, assembly. The key to the trademark, is not the art or the name or even the brand, but the fact that a trademarked good restricted, has lost reputation, and a trademarked good under suit, has engaged in espionage as a public, private, or syndicated sector of labor. In other words, they’ve given a flagged hand through lack of eminence of production, that they’ve engaged to defraud their own working order, hence consumers have been given a false promise from evidence of poor quality of product – hence suit against trade house holding market value of reputable good.

Royalty: The appearance of easy profit per non-worked addition to technology, is the royalty, the most ruinous of request any creator could ever make in their work. In this form, the creator has requested a social largesse, for his own workmanship, however has collected revenue upon work he has not done, yet has contributed. Hence, he is inflating his own share of a currency, while the value of the product deflates, and he is selling his poor gains, for an individual series to be reprinted, on a product worth more than he (or she, in the case of recipe boxes, not recipes themselves) could ever hope to be worth, and this moves along in the trap of a royalty ledger. In proper form, an aggregate upon stage of workmanship has a single mark, per stage, with payment due and contracts of logistics to payment to taxbase for use of commons registered. With this system, the royalty, the holder is using the same commons over and over again, without being taxed on commons but rather their own slimmer income margin, growing smaller and smaller as they use the consumer salesbase they’ve created in a broader variety, giving them a narrower gain the longer they collect royalties.

Guildmark: The guild mark is the concept of a trade family’s monopoly over an item, making that item impossible to find in terms of training, while commonplace in terms of reproduction. Classified as ‘free silver’ and ‘silver control’ alternately, based on the family’s generational progress at their trade, this is actually business ownership. Instead of work on a company model, for a combination of family interest, a corporate model, for profiteering on reckless public, or a syndicated model, indicating government share of own largesse for continued work on a public sector affirmament within lodge of financial institution of any kind, this individual has constructed the slurred ‘small business’, actually the right to operate a business inside a locality. This indicates the town is woefully corrupt, if there is a requirement on limitation of owning, opening, closing, funding, staffing, or managing a business, beyond local laws of municipal state in administrating one’s affairs. The limitations on property tax, capital gains, and moving into the community in the first place, is sure to follow, creating a ‘gated community’ (a prison asylum will be built, in other words, then all crime is legal, because the cops do it to you, and you can’t afford a lawyer, you’re all poor).