Archive for November 19th, 2009
In H&R Block Tax Services v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Services Inc., the court stated that “although tangible in some forms, money is simply a representation of a legal obligation or abstract concept.” A similar sort of attitude seems to be involved in the Bilski case. Both cases involve patents where money is used a unit of measure, and this seems to cause all sorts of confusion to the courts.
Is money just a legal obligation as the court states? The court is incorrect that money is a legal obligation. Money exists separate from a functioning legal system. Money is a medium of exchange that measures the total amount of goods and services that can be traded for a certain amount of money. The court seems to be confused by the legal tender rules, but money existed long before any legal tender laws ever existed.
Subscriber Count
Recent Posts
- CATO & Reason Demonstrate Ignorance of Property Rights – Patents
- SOPA, PIPA and Kim Dotcom
- H.R.2930 Crowdfunding Passes House
- Book Review: It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom
- Obama’s Fundamental Change Means – US is No Longer the LAND OF THE FREE
- Book Review: Why America Has Stopped Inventing?
- The Science of Economic Growth: Part 5
- The Science of Economic Growth: Part 4
- The Science of Economic Growth: Part 3
- A Christmas Tale: ‘I Am My Brother’s Keeper’ – and How it Applied to Patents
Recent Comments