Originally Posted by gideongallery

no moron i was pointing out the bias of the quote

the courts define a copyright/patent a "limited monopoly" for the cases they hear
this biased lawyer is deliberately ignoring scope to make his bullshit arguement

he is saying it can't be a monopoly at all because if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want you have no monopoly control.

but if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want, there not going to be anyone ripping it off either

therefore there would not be any infringement

therefore the courts could not /would not be involved.

the situation he is using to justify disqualifying the court declaration CAN"T exist for anything the courts would be involved in.