[LINK] Is it unethical to infringe a patent?

[Deus Ex Machina]

Howard Lowndes [lannet at lannet.com.au] wrote:
> 
> 
> Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> >
> >nothing is owned by everyone. even if it is owned by everyone then the 
> >theft
> >still cant happen since they are already an owner.
> 
> Fallacy 1.
> If you own something in common with other parties, it is possible to 
> steal from those other parties if your actions are intended to 
> permanently deprive all or any of those other parties of their share of 
> the ownership.

its hard to consider that stealing, since you have an interest in it, you
cant steal something you own, or something nobody owns, which is the
effect of saying everyone owns it.

regardless there are no titles that grant everyone ownership of
anything I am aware of, are you?


> >all property is government grant of rights. stop paying your rates and
> >you will find out who trully owns your land.
> 
> Fallacy 2.
> The council may only sell the land for the purpose of recovery of the 
> outstanding rates on the land.  If they sell the property for a higher 
> value than that which is owed on the land then they must surrender that 
> excess to the owner.  They must also ensure that they sell the land at a 
> realistic market price and not at a "fire sale" price that only covers 
> the debt.
> 
> Section 51 of the constitution also deals with just terms in relation to 
> the acquisition of property:
> "(xxxi.) The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or 
> person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to 
> make laws"

doesnt make it a fallacy. another example is eminent domain that can render title a
plaything of governments. see kelo vs city of new london. 

Vic