Travis Johnson wrote:I could be wrong, but I think the best thing to do here is incorporate into an LLC which might eliminate the need for insurance. Anyone who sued (which is not likely) would thus not be able to get your home and property, which is what could happen if you weren't.
Jarret Hynd wrote:My science/math teacher had told us that once in awhile some investment groups would buy every combination of tickets when the lottery prize had accumulated after not being won for several weeks. I'd say that's the only way to stack the deck in your favour when it comes to the lotto, and it's not really achievable with individuals.
Indiana Farm Bureau
225 S. East St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46202
The doors will open early for us at 9:00 am
Pitch-in Lunch will be at 12:30
Speaker at 1:30
Business meeting 2:30 - 2:45
Auction 2:45 - 3:30
Matt Grantham wrote:This is likely illegal if anyone were actually try to sell anything due to patent rights in most case, but if said community maintained this production under the pretense of a time bank or something similar might they be exempt for patent infringement?
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Todd Parr wrote:I hesitate to even post in threads like this because it seems my point of view is generally unpopular, but nearly every time I hear "redistribute", it means "theft". If you have 4 people in a room and 1 of them has 20 dollars and the others have none, people that like to "redistribute wealth" believe it is okay to take 15 dollars from the guy with 20, and give 5 to each of the others. To me, that is morally and legally wrong. It's also self-defeating, because you remove the incentive from the guy that had 20 dollars to go earn another 20 if you are just going to take it anyway. Sharing with others is a virtue and I believe strongly in it, but by definition, sharing means someone giving something to someone else, not someone taking something from me against my will and giving it to someone I did not choose to give it to.
There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better’s wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who’d rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss’s, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted – that was the truth of it – but we didn’t like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.