Not directly, but if the other party obtains a court order to enforce a provision of a contract (specific performance), and you disregard that order, then it's contempt of court... a proper example would be someone who would violate an NDA, and then refuses to stop violating an NDA after they get a court order telling you to shut up.
They're only air-tight as long as we allow it to be.
Which will be forever given the nature of the majority of you on/. and in the rest of the USA.
Especially those that lie down and take it, like you.
Look, I don't agree with mandatory arbitration clauses at all. However, that doesn't magically make them unenforceable in court. Why would I ever desire to present a frivolous legal argument?
If we want to change this, then we need to attack it in the appropriate way: legislation. If there were legislation to support this, I would be behind it 100%. But again, regardless of what my opinions are, they aren't going to make the courts rule against mandatory arbitration agreements.
I has been a long time since I took business law in college but one thing I remember is that you cannot contract away your right to sue. But having such a clause in the contract may discourage someone from trying to sue.
I noticed the clause allows a small claims suit (The price of the game?) It also allows suits over intellectual property and piracy. It seems that they are trying to prevent lawsuits that would hurt them while keeping the right to sue when it benefits them.
My guess is that if someone attempted to sue them the court would throw out those clauses.
You cannot give up your right to legal recourse. That does not have to be a lawsuit though, it could also be an arbitration. And with a mandatory arbitration clause, you can block all lawsuits. It's oddly not that uncommon here in the US.
Although, recently there was a review and ruling about mandatory arbitration clauses when in dispute even in construction. Apparently, even if you disagree about the construction of the contract, a mandatory arbitration clause requires you to settle the matter in arbitration, even if the specific clause you're objecting to the construction of is the arbitration clause.
Basically, mandatory arbitration clauses are pretty good and well air-tight.
Really, Intel and AMD should join forces in this: Make 'to change monitor brightness write a value from 0 (darker) to 0xff (brighter) to register 0xABC PERIOD'. "but but but", "I SAID PERIOD".
According to my standards guides, the term is "full stop" not "period". (*/sarcasm*)
I was guessing at $12k/year to get it under the minimum earning to require filing, turns out I was wrong. Having looked it up, it seems to be more about $9k/year. I would have used that value instead.
What it means is that they were added to the constitution with that in mind. Without being in the constitution it would be less likely that patents would exist in the US.
Or are you just making a post hoc rationalization for why the original post was correct by changing the parameters and hoping that nobody notices?
I think I was referring to patents in general, and not to their stated intent in US law. Did the US Constitution establish and erect the original precedent for patents all over the world? I'm kind of doubting such a position.
You know, poll taxes were given a fairly innocuous intent, as were many other Jim Crow laws, and other discriminatory legislation. Many of the marriage amendments banning same-sex marriages are drafted with the stated intent to "protect the sanctity of traditional marriage", while in truth, they're a reactionary knee-jerk response to ensure that state courts cannot legalize same-sex marriages within that state.
See, there's this subtle thing called "lying about intent", or probably more accurately, "deluding oneself as to intent". You know, telling yourself that all other peoples being counted as 3/5ths of a person is part of creating a more perfect union where all men are considered equal.
I would like to say that we will get better, but history shows us that we will continually argue about the same things forever. A hundred years ago we were complaining about the foreigners not assimilating, and how we need to reform the laws to prevent them from coming into our country, war, and "class warfare".
While I appreciate optimistic outlooks, I am simply too cynical and skeptical to believe in them myself.:(
(Although, if you display this kind of communication skill on your CV and in interviews, no further explanation is necessary...)
... what purpose do you have for knowing the precise reasons behind me not having any income? Perhaps I'm a housewife, who doesn't work. Perhaps I'm a disabled person, who is unable to work. The reason bears little relevance to my point at hand, that a flat value tax applied universally to all citizens would exceed the income of some individuals.
That you would insist that you have a right to pry into my life and have me justify the reason why I don't have any income is kind of offensive. (Yes, I explained it elsewhere, but they didn't demand it, as if it were a demonstration of my hireability.)
Of course, truth is, that I've received two separate jobs from two separate multinational corporations that are leaders in their businesses; one of which solicited me directly for work, and the other of which was arranged through a headhunter, but for which, I was hired with a 6-digit yearly wage from only a phone interview. I am capable of being hired, and quite valuable... I am simply unable to work due to a disability.
Right, no one could possibly live off of $1000 a year. You know, looking back on it, if you exclude foodstamps, I've earned not a single penny in income. I don't live under a bridge (because I have carrying friends and family, who wouldn't let that happen), and get food entirely through foodstamps...
You've never earned anything other than food stamps? Seriously? How much longer do you expect your "carrying" friends and family to continue doing so?
As noted below, there was information missing. The lack of income comment was over the previous year. I have earned money before, and I've paid more well than my fair share of taxes. (How have I pay more than my fair share? Well, I had the opportunity for a full refund, and decided instead to not file taxes as my income had not exceeded the amount that makes filing mandatory. What you read is correct, I was below the poverty line and still paid my goddamn taxes. I walk the walk, not just talk the talk.)
I think there was a system in the older times prior to currency, where people exchanged goods and services in exchange for other goods and services directly. As it turns out that living with a brother and his bachelor roommates presents plenty of opportunity for one to justify the charity provided by providing cleaning.
As also noted, I am currently applying for disability, as I am unable to work. (Yes, I've tried.) That is why I lack any income. It's kind of difficult to have an income, when one is unable to work. (But you said you're cleaning to earn your room and board; no, I said it justifies my charity, not that it is sufficient to fully offset the monetary value that I am receiving.)
It amazes me that people in America love to jump to the assumption that anyone receiving government assistance is simply inept and lazy. As if every person earns their rightful place in society of their own achievements. As if Bill Gates were born in a cave with parents who use stone tools, yet managed to claw his way to the top reinventing everything about math and computers himself to produce Microsoft DOS... what am I taking about? Even "stone tools" is an advantage that many homo sapiens may not have even had.... or wait, maybe there's a remote possibility that Bill Gates was born into a family, where the father was a noted and well respected lawyer, and thus born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I mean, it just wouldn't be the American "conquer all" story that we so love if he were born into the top 10% of society, and clawed his way up to the pinnacle. I mean, because likely larger than 50% of the people are born into families that earn under the mean income of the society, so we obviously want to look at someone born into that disadvantaged substrate and yet managed to claw their way to the top... except, you know, they're exceedingly rare, like less than 0.01% of those born into the under 50% population, so we simply hold this dangling carrot in front of the laboring masses with sweat poisonous words of "you can get there, too! just try harder!" All the while knowledgeable that it is simply an impossibility that each person who works every day to the bone could not possibly make it into the top 10% of the population.
But then, Americans do so love that mirage in the distance... after all, we sell it like it's bottled water, and the Americans just lap it right up. "I'm going to work hard so I can be a billionaire!" Keep dreaming Jimmy... keep dreaming.
Too moderate? I'm perplexed as to how anyone could even write that based on my comment...
Does my comment say something I don't understand it to say? Surely it only speaks towards the negation of a single idea... rather than espousing any personally held ideas, so perhaps it is just the vacuum of argument allowing people to insert their own ideas into my words?
Honestly, my personal position on this matter is "tax the rich more", as they're afforded more benefits from society than any poor person will ever experience. You know, because they're earning money from other people's labors...
Hmm the GIF patents expiring were a pretty big deal (but not due to the technological superiority, just because everyone had a lot of those files) and Apple's expired font hinting patents are still relevant as well, but those are the only ones I can remember, which is a pretty bad ratio for the number of software patents expiring all of the time.
True, I will say that the things that truly deserve to be patentable will be relevant once the patent expires. Perhaps that would be a better test for patentability? "Will this invention still be relevant once the patent expires?"
Of course, much like making the perfect task scheduler for a computer requires it to be prescient, I doubt such a question would actually be workable...
Right, no one could possibly live off of $1000 a year. You know, looking back on it, if you exclude foodstamps, I've earned not a single penny in income. I don't live under a bridge (because I have carrying friends and family, who wouldn't let that happen), and get food entirely through foodstamps.
Your solution sounds so great, because it is so simple, but fact is that it will not actually work. It fundamentally punishes people for being poor, which is generally beyond their power to control. And it completely discards this idea that society has called "charity". Poor people's lives suck bad enough, why do you have to drop the same burden on them as those who are rich?
And we should reward people for hording cash like dragons? You do realize that people grabbing at cash any which way they possibly can has been the cause of every bubble, depression, and recession that we have ever had, right? It's why we can't trust employers to treat their employees better than slaves, and provide a safe work environment without oversight. Really, why should we be encouraging people to be greedy heartless bastards? Rich, sure, that's fine, but it bring with it social responsibilities to the society that has rested such confidence with an individual.
So, patents never existed prior to the US Constitution, so thereby, when declared in the US Constitution it declares clearly the purpose and design of patents ab initio?
Or could it be that the post hoc rationalization of the purpose of the patent (as a meme) already existed, and was widely already propagated by the time the US Constitution was written, and that in a vein attempt to convince themselves of the purpose of a tool, they declare it loudly and explicitly without regard to the original design?
You know, because Family Matters and a number of organizations opposing gay marriage seem intent on declaring that the original purpose of marriage was to sanctify the union of a single man, and single woman, even though quite clearly we understand that marriage developed fluidly and dynamically out of cultures, and was more about assurance of parentage and legitimacy of children, as well as political partnerships, etc... hell, this "one man and one woman because of love" idea is quite a new "redefinition of marriage" itself.
It wasn't hundreds of years, the time span was originally pretty short and got extended (20 years in the US now I believe). The issue in the IT sector is that after such a long time span, the inventions are irrelevant. Nobody cares about patents that are only applicable to 5MHz supercomputers nowadays.
Yes, I was exaggerating, and you're absolutely right that the obsolescence rate of patents in electronics is increasing far faster than the expiration rate of patents, so when thy finally expire, they're essentially worthless. (N.B. there are a lot of people who are eager to build NES and SNES systems as soon as the patents expire. But this is far more of a "niche" interest than actual interest in advancing technology, and innovation.)
I remember in my history of engineering class, they talked about how the self-contained pistol cartridge was a huge deal, and put the developer ahead in sales enormously for a long time until the patent expired. However, of course, the self-contained pistol cartridge wasn't worthless when its patent expired, and so it became ubiquitous once the patent expired. God, how often do we hear of a patent in computers expiring and every is in a rush to reproduce it generically....:(
I like the cut of your jib, send me your resume and I can get you a job writing for Fox News.
Since when does Fox News argue for poor people? I would make a horrible contributor at Fox News, particularly owing to being a member of the Socialist Party USA.
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
So if that person making $12,000 a year pays $2 for a bottle of coke, Gates should pay what? $2,000? $2,000,000? Incidentally, good job with the class envy & the scare mongering.
A person making $12,000 a year is likely buying their $2 bottle of coke on foodstamps provided by the government in the first place. So, really, they're paying about $0 for a bottle of coke out of their income.
And this "class envy" that you purpose is not an imagined thing, nor an opinion. What happens to people who cannot pay taxes? Oh yeah, they rack up a bill so high that they can't pay it, and eventually either settle for something that they can pay, or end up in jail for tax evasion. So, let me ask you, if your scheme were implemented, and set at $1,000 a year, which I am entirely unable to currently pay, at what point would the government decide to just jail me for failure to pay my taxes? Or would I get a special "poor person" dispensation because I'm entirely incapable of paying the taxes because I have no income?
I mean, the $2 bottle of coke that I'm buying was bought through government funds, but I can't very well pay my $1,000 a year in foodstamps, because it's not food. Then again, if my foodstamps run out, guess what? I can't and don't buy any more coke. Of course, foodstamps also don't buy DVDs, alcohol, or new clothes... guess which items I don't buy at all? I don't hardly have the choice of not paying taxes by not using any services at all. I can't exactly exempt out of police protection in order to reduce my tax burden.
That's why the whole analogy of taxes to a contract for the purchase of physical goods fails. Physical goods can be bought in varying amounts according to affordability, while social programs are often provided to those people who can least afford to actually pay for those services. Providing social services only to those people who can best afford to pay for those services would kind of defeat the purpose of helping the poor... because only the rich would be getting the benefits.
But seriously: A startup hit by a Patent Troll will spend $1M to $5M to fight it off. How does bogging down startups like this help America invent? It doesn't.
Patents were never designed to do any such thing. It may have been post hoc rationalized as something to increase inventiveness, and honestly, I don't think there is any compelling data supporting either side.
Patents were intended to give a person an exclusive right to produce a new invention and make money off of it. Thus, patents are about greedily hording inventions and technology away from others in exchange for disclosing how they actually work, so that later (100s of years) that information would not have gone to your grave with you. (Like many kinds of stained glass that we no longer know how to make, because no one passed it on.)
It's basic purpose is to exploit greed to provide a benefit to mankind at a later date... this of course has the obvious effect of stunting the development and innovation cycle, because you can't use other people's ideas once they're actually available. I read an interesting piece about fashion, as it turns out that one cannot patent, copyright, or trademark fashion designs, and thus anyone can just steal an idea from someone else. Yet, they have a vibrant, active, and rapid development cycle. Of course it also renders old things "out of fashion" quite quickly as well, as soon everyone will have it, if it is popular enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Not directly, but if the other party obtains a court order to enforce a provision of a contract (specific performance), and you disregard that order, then it's contempt of court... a proper example would be someone who would violate an NDA, and then refuses to stop violating an NDA after they get a court order telling you to shut up.
They're only air-tight as long as we allow it to be.
Which will be forever given the nature of the majority of you on /. and in the rest of the USA.
Especially those that lie down and take it, like you.
Look, I don't agree with mandatory arbitration clauses at all. However, that doesn't magically make them unenforceable in court. Why would I ever desire to present a frivolous legal argument?
If we want to change this, then we need to attack it in the appropriate way: legislation. If there were legislation to support this, I would be behind it 100%. But again, regardless of what my opinions are, they aren't going to make the courts rule against mandatory arbitration agreements.
Quite agreed... the party that drafted the contract has to accept any strike outs as well. This is obviously not enforceable in court.
My entire response to your post: "do not take your legal advise from the internet."
I has been a long time since I took business law in college but one thing I remember is that you cannot contract away your right to sue. But having such a clause in the contract may discourage someone from trying to sue.
I noticed the clause allows a small claims suit (The price of the game?) It also allows suits over intellectual property and piracy. It seems that they are trying to prevent lawsuits that would hurt them while keeping the right to sue when it benefits them.
My guess is that if someone attempted to sue them the court would throw out those clauses.
You cannot give up your right to legal recourse. That does not have to be a lawsuit though, it could also be an arbitration. And with a mandatory arbitration clause, you can block all lawsuits. It's oddly not that uncommon here in the US.
I was going to make this comment. Thanks.
Although, recently there was a review and ruling about mandatory arbitration clauses when in dispute even in construction. Apparently, even if you disagree about the construction of the contract, a mandatory arbitration clause requires you to settle the matter in arbitration, even if the specific clause you're objecting to the construction of is the arbitration clause.
Basically, mandatory arbitration clauses are pretty good and well air-tight.
Really, Intel and AMD should join forces in this: Make 'to change monitor brightness write a value from 0 (darker) to 0xff (brighter) to register 0xABC PERIOD'. "but but but", "I SAID PERIOD".
According to my standards guides, the term is "full stop" not "period". (*/sarcasm*)
Neither of the terms "dove" nor "pigeon" are rigorously defined in biology. In colloquial speech even less so.
I was guessing at $12k/year to get it under the minimum earning to require filing, turns out I was wrong. Having looked it up, it seems to be more about $9k/year. I would have used that value instead.
monopoly systems != patents! they've existed far longer.
True, however, patent == exclusive right, which I believe is the phrasing that I used.
What it means is that they were added to the constitution with that in mind. Without being in the constitution it would be less likely that patents would exist in the US.
Or are you just making a post hoc rationalization for why the original post was correct by changing the parameters and hoping that nobody notices?
I think I was referring to patents in general, and not to their stated intent in US law. Did the US Constitution establish and erect the original precedent for patents all over the world? I'm kind of doubting such a position.
You know, poll taxes were given a fairly innocuous intent, as were many other Jim Crow laws, and other discriminatory legislation. Many of the marriage amendments banning same-sex marriages are drafted with the stated intent to "protect the sanctity of traditional marriage", while in truth, they're a reactionary knee-jerk response to ensure that state courts cannot legalize same-sex marriages within that state.
See, there's this subtle thing called "lying about intent", or probably more accurately, "deluding oneself as to intent". You know, telling yourself that all other peoples being counted as 3/5ths of a person is part of creating a more perfect union where all men are considered equal.
This is going to end.
I would like to say that we will get better, but history shows us that we will continually argue about the same things forever. A hundred years ago we were complaining about the foreigners not assimilating, and how we need to reform the laws to prevent them from coming into our country, war, and "class warfare".
While I appreciate optimistic outlooks, I am simply too cynical and skeptical to believe in them myself. :(
Because...
(Although, if you display this kind of communication skill on your CV and in interviews, no further explanation is necessary...)
... what purpose do you have for knowing the precise reasons behind me not having any income? Perhaps I'm a housewife, who doesn't work. Perhaps I'm a disabled person, who is unable to work. The reason bears little relevance to my point at hand, that a flat value tax applied universally to all citizens would exceed the income of some individuals.
That you would insist that you have a right to pry into my life and have me justify the reason why I don't have any income is kind of offensive. (Yes, I explained it elsewhere, but they didn't demand it, as if it were a demonstration of my hireability.)
Of course, truth is, that I've received two separate jobs from two separate multinational corporations that are leaders in their businesses; one of which solicited me directly for work, and the other of which was arranged through a headhunter, but for which, I was hired with a 6-digit yearly wage from only a phone interview. I am capable of being hired, and quite valuable... I am simply unable to work due to a disability.
Right, no one could possibly live off of $1000 a year. You know, looking back on it, if you exclude foodstamps, I've earned not a single penny in income. I don't live under a bridge (because I have carrying friends and family, who wouldn't let that happen), and get food entirely through foodstamps...
You've never earned anything other than food stamps? Seriously? How much longer do you expect your "carrying" friends and family to continue doing so?
As noted below, there was information missing. The lack of income comment was over the previous year. I have earned money before, and I've paid more well than my fair share of taxes. (How have I pay more than my fair share? Well, I had the opportunity for a full refund, and decided instead to not file taxes as my income had not exceeded the amount that makes filing mandatory. What you read is correct, I was below the poverty line and still paid my goddamn taxes. I walk the walk, not just talk the talk.)
I think there was a system in the older times prior to currency, where people exchanged goods and services in exchange for other goods and services directly. As it turns out that living with a brother and his bachelor roommates presents plenty of opportunity for one to justify the charity provided by providing cleaning.
As also noted, I am currently applying for disability, as I am unable to work. (Yes, I've tried.) That is why I lack any income. It's kind of difficult to have an income, when one is unable to work. (But you said you're cleaning to earn your room and board; no, I said it justifies my charity, not that it is sufficient to fully offset the monetary value that I am receiving.)
It amazes me that people in America love to jump to the assumption that anyone receiving government assistance is simply inept and lazy. As if every person earns their rightful place in society of their own achievements. As if Bill Gates were born in a cave with parents who use stone tools, yet managed to claw his way to the top reinventing everything about math and computers himself to produce Microsoft DOS... what am I taking about? Even "stone tools" is an advantage that many homo sapiens may not have even had. ... or wait, maybe there's a remote possibility that Bill Gates was born into a family, where the father was a noted and well respected lawyer, and thus born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I mean, it just wouldn't be the American "conquer all" story that we so love if he were born into the top 10% of society, and clawed his way up to the pinnacle. I mean, because likely larger than 50% of the people are born into families that earn under the mean income of the society, so we obviously want to look at someone born into that disadvantaged substrate and yet managed to claw their way to the top... except, you know, they're exceedingly rare, like less than 0.01% of those born into the under 50% population, so we simply hold this dangling carrot in front of the laboring masses with sweat poisonous words of "you can get there, too! just try harder!" All the while knowledgeable that it is simply an impossibility that each person who works every day to the bone could not possibly make it into the top 10% of the population.
But then, Americans do so love that mirage in the distance... after all, we sell it like it's bottled water, and the Americans just lap it right up. "I'm going to work hard so I can be a billionaire!" Keep dreaming Jimmy... keep dreaming.
You know, looking back on it, if you exclude foodstamps, I've earned not a single penny in income
I think this sentence needs some clarification.
Over the previous year.
Too moderate? I'm perplexed as to how anyone could even write that based on my comment...
Does my comment say something I don't understand it to say? Surely it only speaks towards the negation of a single idea... rather than espousing any personally held ideas, so perhaps it is just the vacuum of argument allowing people to insert their own ideas into my words?
Honestly, my personal position on this matter is "tax the rich more", as they're afforded more benefits from society than any poor person will ever experience. You know, because they're earning money from other people's labors...
Hmm the GIF patents expiring were a pretty big deal (but not due to the technological superiority, just because everyone had a lot of those files) and Apple's expired font hinting patents are still relevant as well, but those are the only ones I can remember, which is a pretty bad ratio for the number of software patents expiring all of the time.
True, I will say that the things that truly deserve to be patentable will be relevant once the patent expires. Perhaps that would be a better test for patentability? "Will this invention still be relevant once the patent expires?"
Of course, much like making the perfect task scheduler for a computer requires it to be prescient, I doubt such a question would actually be workable...
GP said "income/wealth," but meant "income," since we are taxed on income, and not on our ability to save and invest money.
Capital gains aren't taxed? Funny, I seem to hear about the rich complaining about that tax a lot...
Right, no one could possibly live off of $1000 a year. You know, looking back on it, if you exclude foodstamps, I've earned not a single penny in income. I don't live under a bridge (because I have carrying friends and family, who wouldn't let that happen), and get food entirely through foodstamps.
Your solution sounds so great, because it is so simple, but fact is that it will not actually work. It fundamentally punishes people for being poor, which is generally beyond their power to control. And it completely discards this idea that society has called "charity". Poor people's lives suck bad enough, why do you have to drop the same burden on them as those who are rich?
And we should reward people for hording cash like dragons? You do realize that people grabbing at cash any which way they possibly can has been the cause of every bubble, depression, and recession that we have ever had, right? It's why we can't trust employers to treat their employees better than slaves, and provide a safe work environment without oversight. Really, why should we be encouraging people to be greedy heartless bastards? Rich, sure, that's fine, but it bring with it social responsibilities to the society that has rested such confidence with an individual.
So, patents never existed prior to the US Constitution, so thereby, when declared in the US Constitution it declares clearly the purpose and design of patents ab initio?
Or could it be that the post hoc rationalization of the purpose of the patent (as a meme) already existed, and was widely already propagated by the time the US Constitution was written, and that in a vein attempt to convince themselves of the purpose of a tool, they declare it loudly and explicitly without regard to the original design?
You know, because Family Matters and a number of organizations opposing gay marriage seem intent on declaring that the original purpose of marriage was to sanctify the union of a single man, and single woman, even though quite clearly we understand that marriage developed fluidly and dynamically out of cultures, and was more about assurance of parentage and legitimacy of children, as well as political partnerships, etc... hell, this "one man and one woman because of love" idea is quite a new "redefinition of marriage" itself.
It wasn't hundreds of years, the time span was originally pretty short and got extended (20 years in the US now I believe). The issue in the IT sector is that after such a long time span, the inventions are irrelevant. Nobody cares about patents that are only applicable to 5MHz supercomputers nowadays.
Yes, I was exaggerating, and you're absolutely right that the obsolescence rate of patents in electronics is increasing far faster than the expiration rate of patents, so when thy finally expire, they're essentially worthless. (N.B. there are a lot of people who are eager to build NES and SNES systems as soon as the patents expire. But this is far more of a "niche" interest than actual interest in advancing technology, and innovation.)
I remember in my history of engineering class, they talked about how the self-contained pistol cartridge was a huge deal, and put the developer ahead in sales enormously for a long time until the patent expired. However, of course, the self-contained pistol cartridge wasn't worthless when its patent expired, and so it became ubiquitous once the patent expired. God, how often do we hear of a patent in computers expiring and every is in a rush to reproduce it generically.... :(
I like the cut of your jib, send me your resume and I can get you a job writing for Fox News.
Since when does Fox News argue for poor people? I would make a horrible contributor at Fox News, particularly owing to being a member of the Socialist Party USA.
What world do you live in?
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
So if that person making $12,000 a year pays $2 for a bottle of coke, Gates should pay what? $2,000? $2,000,000? Incidentally, good job with the class envy & the scare mongering.
A person making $12,000 a year is likely buying their $2 bottle of coke on foodstamps provided by the government in the first place. So, really, they're paying about $0 for a bottle of coke out of their income.
And this "class envy" that you purpose is not an imagined thing, nor an opinion. What happens to people who cannot pay taxes? Oh yeah, they rack up a bill so high that they can't pay it, and eventually either settle for something that they can pay, or end up in jail for tax evasion. So, let me ask you, if your scheme were implemented, and set at $1,000 a year, which I am entirely unable to currently pay, at what point would the government decide to just jail me for failure to pay my taxes? Or would I get a special "poor person" dispensation because I'm entirely incapable of paying the taxes because I have no income?
I mean, the $2 bottle of coke that I'm buying was bought through government funds, but I can't very well pay my $1,000 a year in foodstamps, because it's not food. Then again, if my foodstamps run out, guess what? I can't and don't buy any more coke. Of course, foodstamps also don't buy DVDs, alcohol, or new clothes... guess which items I don't buy at all? I don't hardly have the choice of not paying taxes by not using any services at all. I can't exactly exempt out of police protection in order to reduce my tax burden.
That's why the whole analogy of taxes to a contract for the purchase of physical goods fails. Physical goods can be bought in varying amounts according to affordability, while social programs are often provided to those people who can least afford to actually pay for those services. Providing social services only to those people who can best afford to pay for those services would kind of defeat the purpose of helping the poor... because only the rich would be getting the benefits.
But seriously: A startup hit by a Patent Troll will spend $1M to $5M to fight it off. How does bogging down startups like this help America invent? It doesn't.
Patents were never designed to do any such thing. It may have been post hoc rationalized as something to increase inventiveness, and honestly, I don't think there is any compelling data supporting either side.
Patents were intended to give a person an exclusive right to produce a new invention and make money off of it. Thus, patents are about greedily hording inventions and technology away from others in exchange for disclosing how they actually work, so that later (100s of years) that information would not have gone to your grave with you. (Like many kinds of stained glass that we no longer know how to make, because no one passed it on.)
It's basic purpose is to exploit greed to provide a benefit to mankind at a later date... this of course has the obvious effect of stunting the development and innovation cycle, because you can't use other people's ideas once they're actually available. I read an interesting piece about fashion, as it turns out that one cannot patent, copyright, or trademark fashion designs, and thus anyone can just steal an idea from someone else. Yet, they have a vibrant, active, and rapid development cycle. Of course it also renders old things "out of fashion" quite quickly as well, as soon everyone will have it, if it is popular enough.