Yep. Every single one, although in a few areas I really don't have the technical expertise to have thought out the full implications. Still, although I can't rule out that in some of those I might be persuaded to modify my position; in general, I support them all. Take that, Oil Can Harry.

As a published writer, who expects to be paid for his work, I particularly liked this one.

*Intellectual Property. The appropriate purpose of intellectual property rights protection is to provide incentives for research and creative contribution, not to create protected information monopolies. Intellectual property rights should be defined and interpreted narrowly and granted only for the minimum period of time necessary to allow those who invest in research to recover their costs and a reasonable profit. The patenting of any life form or genetic process, any discovery funded with public monies, or any process or technology that gives the holder effective monopoly control over a type of research or class of products should be precluded by law.

You see, I am more interested in seeing whatever I produce of value be used by others than I am in squeezing every last bit of profit from it. I do expect to get paid for my work when I first sell it, but not in perpetuity to the last syllable of recorded time. Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Knowledge is useless unless it is shared freely.

Do you remember my remarks on sailboat hull design from my article on Sharpies?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; a safe, useful design is not "intellectual property" to be hoarded and patented and marketed for profit. It belongs to all who need it.

Tom, you're just going to have to get it through your head that just because you are convinced something is obvious does not automatically mean it has to be even reasonable to anyone else.

How about them apples, comrade?