IP

danieldeubank

Tariff Authorities Available to President Trump Post-SCOTUS RulingThe Supreme Court's February 20, 2026, decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump invalidated the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for imposing tariffs, affirming that tariffs are taxes under congressional authority (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). However, Congress has delegated specific tariff powers to the President through various statutes, which remain intact. These allow the President to impose tariffs under defined conditions, often requiring investigations or findings by agencies like the Department of Commerce, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), or International Trade Commission (ITC).Below is a comprehensive list of the main statutory authorities still at President Trump's disposal for imposing tariffs. These are drawn from existing laws and have been highlighted in post-ruling analyses as viable alternatives. Note that some require procedural steps (e.g., investigations), and all could face legal challenges if misused. Antidumping and countervailing duties (administered by Commerce and ITC) are not included here, as they follow quasi-judicial processes rather than direct presidential action. 1. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. § 1862) * Purpose: Allows tariffs or quotas on imports that threaten U.S. national security. * Process: Requires an investigation and report by the Secretary of Commerce (typically within 270 days), followed by presidential action within 90 days. No limits on tariff rates or duration. * Examples/Notes: Used for steel, aluminum, and autos in Trump's terms; existing Section 232 tariffs remain in effect post-ruling. [cfr.org](http://cfr.org) \+2 Broad interpretation of "national security" gives flexibility. 2. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §§ 2411–2420) * Purpose: Addresses unfair, unjustifiable, or discriminatory foreign trade practices that burden U.S. commerce (e.g., IP theft, subsidies). * Process: USTR conducts an investigation (up to 12 months), makes recommendations, and the President can impose tariffs or other remedies. Tariffs terminate after 4 years unless extended after review. No rate limits. * Examples/Notes: Used against China in Trump's first term; Trump has announced new Section 301 investigations post-ruling. [wiley.law](http://wiley.law) \+2 Suitable for targeted or country-specific tariffs. 3. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2132) * Purpose: Addresses large and persistent balance-of-payments deficits (related to trade imbalances). * Process: No investigation required; President can impose tariffs up to 15% or quotas immediately. Limited to 150 days unless Congress approves extension. * Examples/Notes: Never used before; Trump announced a 10% global tariff under this section immediately after the ruling. [wiley.law](http://wiley.law) \+3 Provides quick action but is temporary. 4. Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1338) * Purpose: Responds to foreign countries discriminating against U.S. commerce (e.g., unfair barriers or preferences). * Process: No investigation or time limits; President can impose tariffs up to 50% directly. * Examples/Notes: Untested in modern times (from Smoot-Hawley era); could face challenges over what constitutes "discrimination," but offers broad discretion. [newsweek.com](http://newsweek.com) \+1 5. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §§ 2251–2254) * Purpose: Provides "safeguard" relief for domestic industries seriously injured by import surges (not necessarily unfair practices). * Process: ITC investigates (up to 120–150 days) and recommends remedies; President can impose tariffs or quotas for up to 4 years (extendable to 8). Rates vary but are temporary. * Examples/Notes: Used sparingly (e.g., steel in 2002); focuses on industry protection rather than security or unfairness. [taxfoundation.org](http://taxfoundation.org) \+1 These authorities cover most scenarios Trump has pursued, though they involve more constraints (e.g., time limits, investigations) than IEEPA did. The administration could combine them or seek new congressional delegations for broader powers. For the latest developments, as the ruling is from today, monitor official announcements.

danieldeubank

Tariff Authorities Available to President Trump Post-SCOTUS RulingThe Supreme Court's February 20, 2026, decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump invalidated the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for imposing tariffs, affirming that tariffs are taxes under congressional authority (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). However, Congress has delegated specific tariff powers to the President through various statutes, which remain intact. These allow the President to impose tariffs under defined conditions, often requiring investigations or findings by agencies like the Department of Commerce, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), or International Trade Commission (ITC).Below is a comprehensive list of the main statutory authorities still at President Trump's disposal for imposing tariffs. These are drawn from existing laws and have been highlighted in post-ruling analyses as viable alternatives. Note that some require procedural steps (e.g., investigations), and all could face legal challenges if misused. Antidumping and countervailing duties (administered by Commerce and ITC) are not included here, as they follow quasi-judicial processes rather than direct presidential action. 1. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. § 1862) * Purpose: Allows tariffs or quotas on imports that threaten U.S. national security. * Process: Requires an investigation and report by the Secretary of Commerce (typically within 270 days), followed by presidential action within 90 days. No limits on tariff rates or duration. * Examples/Notes: Used for steel, aluminum, and autos in Trump's terms; existing Section 232 tariffs remain in effect post-ruling. [cfr.org](http://cfr.org) \+2 Broad interpretation of "national security" gives flexibility. 2. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §§ 2411–2420) * Purpose: Addresses unfair, unjustifiable, or discriminatory foreign trade practices that burden U.S. commerce (e.g., IP theft, subsidies). * Process: USTR conducts an investigation (up to 12 months), makes recommendations, and the President can impose tariffs or other remedies. Tariffs terminate after 4 years unless extended after review. No rate limits. * Examples/Notes: Used against China in Trump's first term; Trump has announced new Section 301 investigations post-ruling. [wiley.law](http://wiley.law) \+2 Suitable for targeted or country-specific tariffs. 3. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2132) * Purpose: Addresses large and persistent balance-of-payments deficits (related to trade imbalances). * Process: No investigation required; President can impose tariffs up to 15% or quotas immediately. Limited to 150 days unless Congress approves extension. * Examples/Notes: Never used before; Trump announced a 10% global tariff under this section immediately after the ruling. [wiley.law](http://wiley.law) \+3 Provides quick action but is temporary. 4. Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1338) * Purpose: Responds to foreign countries discriminating against U.S. commerce (e.g., unfair barriers or preferences). * Process: No investigation or time limits; President can impose tariffs up to 50% directly. * Examples/Notes: Untested in modern times (from Smoot-Hawley era); could face challenges over what constitutes "discrimination," but offers broad discretion. [newsweek.com](http://newsweek.com) \+1 5. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §§ 2251–2254) * Purpose: Provides "safeguard" relief for domestic industries seriously injured by import surges (not necessarily unfair practices). * Process: ITC investigates (up to 120–150 days) and recommends remedies; President can impose tariffs or quotas for up to 4 years (extendable to 8). Rates vary but are temporary. * Examples/Notes: Used sparingly (e.g., steel in 2002); focuses on industry protection rather than security or unfairness. [taxfoundation.org](http://taxfoundation.org) \+1 These authorities cover most scenarios Trump has pursued, though they involve more constraints (e.g., time limits, investigations) than IEEPA did. The administration could combine them or seek new congressional delegations for broader powers.

EnvironmentChance991

The most likely reality is that OP made a fat finger trade and accidentally typed 21,100 instead of 2,100 or simply clicked buy when they meant sell and is now blaming the system to avoid the consequences. Brokerage logs are incredibly precise; they track every click, IP address, and device ID. If the logs show the buy order originated from the OP's device, the "glitch" defense evaporates. OP claims they saw a "six-figure loss" and "force closed" the position. If it was a glitch, why would a user "force close" a position they knew was fake? Most experienced traders would immediately call the trade desk to have the trade "busted" (canceled) rather than executing more trades against a phantom position. Selling shares you don't own creates a short. If they sold 21,100 shares they didn't think they had, they were intentionally entering a massive short-sell gamble. Claiming they were "forced" to buy back in because the stock rebounded sounds like a classic case of revenge trading gone wrong. Either OP is regarded or lying or both, but I am not buying it. OP, recoup your position by buying.  OP, take every cent you have left and throw it into deep-out-of-the-money Wendy's calls expiring this Friday afternoon, specifically betting on a surge Pricing squeeze where the stock moons every time a Baconator hits a $15 price point during the lunch rush or there is a rumor of a return of the sponge bib marketing tie in. 

user365735

Yes I suspect there are records for this including IP address of the order even if it did show up as an order. I can't speak for E-Trade but I know amazon as tons of bugs so anything is possible but I'd this really did happen id probably try and fix it by speaking to a manager first then asking reddit. 

thedreadedlock

This \^ Also, is Paramount wins they basically go to junk bond EBITDA I think around 7x, so it would effectively leave them in a really bad spot financially. I don't think they have the ability to pay down the debt. I don't think they have the ability to leverage the IP from WB like Netflix. I think even if they win, they will likely fail spectacularly and Netflix will be picking their bones in the next 5 years and buy all their assets at an even lower valuation.

callmecrude

This is what shareholder value destruction looks like in real time. They’d be acquiring lots of good IP, but they were already offering to overpay what it’s worth. Every dollar over the original offer is just burning money for no actual future gain. That said, I don’t currently hold NFLX and the haircut the stock will take if they do dramatically up their bid would probably make it a decent entry point.

Lord_Rictor

Huge IP like Harry Potter is not something you build in a day or a year. It's childhood memories that are sacred. I see AI leveraging that value to even more profits and value. That video was bland and boring. Even the space ship showing up felt low impact. Partly that's just because the tech is still not great. I'm thinking of the end of apocalypto when the white men ships show up. That felt impactful. https://youtu.be/CaCEcyNt8Ys AI still lacks subtlety for any of these scenes. If it was set in the Harry Potter universe and done correctly, the interest would be peaked for more people. The power and value of IP is not something AI is going to replace. It will increase that value dramatically. The IP gives a similar framework to what you are watching be it Harry Potter or star wars vs random ai magic or random ai space story.

Phuqued

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1r8wl6q/fight_choreography_made_with_seedance_20_in_40/ Assuming that is generally correct, don't you find it quite compelling how much better it will be in 2036 or 2046? Like if everyone is raving about this movie or series being good, what advantage will the IP holder have against that sort of competition? My guess is that new IP content will be created and become popular in ways that undermine IP holders advantages in the market place. Like I said I don't get the mergers, I figure it' just buying time on the Titanic kind of thing. Mergers look good for shareholders, allow balance sheets and ledgers to be shifted around for benefit, etc... but at the end of the day, what good will the IP be in a world where that sort of content is being created daily and can come from anywhere in the world.

db_deuce

"So I just read that [openAI has a 730 Billion valuation pre-money](https://blocknow.com/openai-funding-round-nears-record-100b-raise-valuation-targets-850b/) and they're raising money again - 100B right now. In 2025, they raised [40 Billion at a $300 Billion valuation](https://openai.com/index/march-funding-updates/) (and apparently another 8B until the year's end)" Anthropic just reached 500B on half the revenue run rate as OpenAI and more weekly users. "How is this possible? A company reach a possible TRILLION valuation before even hitting the stock market." private funding are larger and taking it farther, If you think about it with the 100B in new money, this would bring total funding something to around 180B. So rocking 1,000B is just 5-6X returns. Many VC backed companies enjoyed 10X-50X returns on IPO, it's just the exit started at 1-2B not 180B The valuation is 3 components, the value of the IP (which predicts revenue), the TAM (which is likely astronomical), the infrastructure moat (companies will be happy to take on the existing contracts and future 1T commitment because it may be valued at 1.2T inflation adjusted) "Moreover, tech companies are pouring dollars into AI like it's the only thing that matters." You just outlined the reason why AI can be undervalued. Companies is going to pay even more and there will be way more companies. The TAM is there and likely understated. "Imo, the AI right now is exactly as an outsourcing company." The use cases are infinite. When AI can replace coders from India and make them look useless, it is more than an outsourcing company. 50%-80% of white collar jobs are threatened. Infosys is not reaching 0.001%. "I use it, I pay for it because it helps me to whatever job I have and then when I dont need it - I close my subscription." Sam and the entire cohort of OpenAI, Anthropic folks all come from IVY league, YC incubators mentors, graduate, etc. and knows that long game and extract revenue. The numbers are ahead of projections. The losses are concerning but so far I'm sure OpenAI delivered as promise and hence got rewarded with even higher valuation. Progress is the ultimate measure of valuation. The means to extract revenue from AI is nothing I have ever seen. "And who do they believe it's gonna buy a company that's launching at a 1T valuation? It took Apple 37 years to reach 1 Trillion dolars valuation ([they even got in Guinness](https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/549301-first-trillion-dollar-public-company?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) , Microsoft 33 years, Nvidia 24 years and Meta 9 years." A company this famous have a global population of 1B people that would consider it. All the index will have to catch up. At the end of the day, investors will have to look at the 5 year projections and I am plenty sure by 2030, they will rock revenues in the tune of 200B, in the same zip code as Meta, Alphabet and still growing 50%. It's certainly risky but you are dealing with the company behind the AI revolution. Not saying they will win, but they have a shot to be most valuable company in this world.

Lord_Rictor

So your belief is that in less than 10 years people will be simply generating TV episodes that are as good as the best game of thrones available now? And therefore official IP will become irrelevant? I can see what you're saying being possible but again not within 10 years and also that's within the context of corporations allowing that future which they wouldn't;

dub_soda

They sold out your name and IP address a long time ago 😂

Phuqued

> That link is not case and point. It's 2min of poor quality. Granted it's 8 months old but still. That link shows you what some amateurs were able to do. Just like the Will Smith eating Spaghetti difference over a couple/few years. I see the same happening with that kind of work. >AI is really good at clips but NOT at longer scenarios. As time increases the problems multiply. Right now a bunch of clips can be strung together to look ok but still have many problems. It is hard to have a conversation with someone who rejects the history and trends of advancement. Look at the history of AI and Chess and then look at [Deepmind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_DeepMind), not a single example of a plateau here like you are describing. The idea that the current limitations will exist in 10 years is not aligned with the reality of AI and most inventions/innovations either. The first barrels of oil where obscenely expensive, then as production grew and demand grew, prices came down, efficiency was improved, quality was improved, etc... I don't see why that wouldn't happen with AI, especially when we focus on just the objective history of AI advancement. >Enough time and money will fix these issues mostly but that's 10 years away at least in terms of just generating a new game of thrones season that's ok quality. Whether it's 10 years or 20 years or 30 years, my point still stands, what's the value of IP in that world when non-IP holder content or even non-IP content can rival it?

Phuqued

> But I'm telling you, feature films being generated and actually being good is a long time frame out. Not 5 or 10 years. It's not though. Case in point : https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/1kr1ftm/the_draven_as_told_by_danny_mcbride_to_matt_and/ Are you telling me in 10 years that can't be cleaned up, and leverage more hours of AI time to create a more cohesive full motion picture? >Finally as you say, distribution is key. What type of world will it be if every single film is just generated on the spot for each unique viewing experience? The same world where hundreds of thousands if not millions of influencers and youtubers and such fight for popularity. The difference instead is it will be AI content, rather than humans. >For porn or something similar sure, but not for high quality life long content like Harry Potter or Lord of the rings. Those are shared pop culture experiences. And if AI redid the final 2 seasons of Game Of Thrones? Or if AI did the Throng Trilogy instead of the shit JJ Abrams did with Star Wars? (Not that I have a problem with the cast/actors, but come on, that shit is the first trilogy redone) I think you are underestimating the potential here. >I actually see this technology as being great for studios to pump out much more quality content. many people say about AI it increases productivity, it's not completely replacing though, at least not in all cases. I don't disagree that the IP holders will leverage AI, and probably have better AI, but that doesn't change the reality that Hollywood produces shit all the time with big names, while new and young people make their mark by defying that status quo of disposition. I don't think we really disagree on this topic. I'm probably underestimating the power of hollywood and billionaires to enforce their desires, and you are probably overestimating their importance to create quality that appeals to the masses. If that is true, then it's probably somewhere in the middle, and I can accept/live with that. :)

Timely_Basket_1355

Even if they execute well on the WB acquisition, the company will be fundamentally different. It will not be an asset light tech stock with no debt growing earnings 20%+/yr. It will be a media company with a lot of debt with slower earnings growth. Having said that, I still think it is a good idea for Netflix. They need to mature as a company, and that means producing their own content and owning a substantial library of IP to be able to control their own destiny. The only problem is that I have absolutely no idea how to value the resulting company, so I won't be buying the stock.

deadwanderingdaoist

The idea that you can just enter the streaming service is funny to me because no, you obviously can’t. There’s a lot of arguments against Netflix, but this one ain’t it. Look at Disney, they burned billions and billions and have a huge catalogue of IP and are still failing in the space. Amazon had to buy MGM to be kinda relevant in the space and that’s with all their cloud storage synergy which makes it so much cheaper for them and the instant marketing of the Amazon subscription people already have. 

Sufficient-Aide6805

It is a media company that has been valued as a tech company. That is changing and its value is dropping accordingly. The IP it owns and makes is awful. New content has zero value six months post-release.

Phuqued

>AI right now is great for cool shorts and 3 min videos of said clips. >These clips work only in short format. Not a 2 min full scene even. Are you considering how the technology will continue to improve? Look at the original Will Smith eating spaghetti AI video, and look at the more recent one released last year or the year before. My guess is the technology will continue to improve, and require less and less resources to achieve the same standard. The only saving grace for IP will likely come from the world siloing off their respective internets. I do not see how the internet can be this open when the AI hacking bots / data centers come online. But if that doesn't happen, I struggle to see the value of IP in a world where AI can replicate/imitate it with relative ease. I don't think your average consumer is going to care whether the IP holder is being paid or not for AI bootlegs and such. Do you care if Will Smith is getting any kickback for the AI video of him eating spaghetti? :)

Phuqued

>Because IP is still king. In fact the AI makes it even more valuable cuz you can create the special effects and the actual show itself for cheaper but you still want to have the good IP. I fail to see how. Who here is going to care about great shareholder value, more than say some AI bootleg made in Russia or India or China, that has made let's say some great Marvel movies or series? Do you really care if the IP holder for say deadpool is getting their reward, or do you care that AI Deadpool 4 or whatever is hilarious and well done, and that others need to see it? Case in Point : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4mwr7QLC7c&list=RDa4mwr7QLC7c&start_radio=1 Are you concerned about GSV when you watch that? Or are you thoroughly entertained and couldn't really care less about GSV for the IP holder?

favicocool

Which IP cases are these?

impulsivedota

YouTube provides a different service to Netflix though. One is more short videos/streaming related and the other more movies/series. That said Netflix strategy has been to buy IPs for shows rather than paying for each individual series/movie like what some of its competitors are doing. The downside is that it takes on more upfront risk but has loads of upside potential if things turn out well (being able to further cash in on the IP for free if it turns out to be a hit).

hard-scaling

RP2350 (and RP2040 before it) are their own original IP microcontrollers with some very cool innovations, like programmable IO (PIO). I joined a humanoid robotics start-up where we use them for everything. Also, the company is worth £500m market cap after going up 30% yesterday, so pretty cheap in absolute terms in the grand scheme of tech valuations.

Impressive_Trick_573

Strategy should be to become a software market like apple. IP value on software is dead

raj6126

Just look at google and Microsoft’s pending IP cases should scare the hell out of any IT director. Look at how many IP cases are currently pending. Not even talking about the ones they already lost. You going to let someone that’s known to steal software host your next big thing? They will just steal it make you sue them and you might get a pay out in 15 years.m if you don’t run out of money.

fluffyinternetcloud

We all need to crowd fund buying out the Blockbuster IP so it can buy Netflix and WBD and then the circle will be complete.

lPHOENIXZEROl

I think they wanted it before the midterms but that's out the window. They want WB because of the library and all their IP to bolster Paramount. On top of the propaganda.

shelfdog

The rules to qualify for Academy Awards are very clear and don't require buying a movie studio: For the 2025/2026 Oscars, films must have a one-week (seven consecutive days) commercial run in one of six U.S. cities (LA, NY, Chicago, Atlanta, SF, Miami). For Best Picture, an "expanded run" is now required: 7 additional days in 10 of the top 50 U.S. markets within 45 days of initial release. [Source: Oscars.org](https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards) But films only need to be on *one* theater screen in each city during these short runs to qualify. Being as independent theaters are available in all of those markets, there's no need for Netflix to buy WB to get "their stuff in movie theaters and up for the big awards." Not when they can continue to rent those theaters to qualify like they have been doing for their previous Oscar nommed productions for years. Far smaller producers than Netflix do the same thing and have for ages. More likely, the reason Netflix is interested is because of the incredible value of the WB IP to a streaming company like Netflix. Franchises like *Game Of Thrones*, *DC Universe*, *Friends*, *Big Bang Theory*, *Two And A Half Men*, *Vampire Diaries*, *Supernatural*, *Looney Tunes*, *Rick & Morty*, etc etc are all still big money makers and highly coveted by other broadcasters & streamers for replays in syndication - and those syndication rights generate a lot of $$. (If you have cable TV, you regularly see Friends or Big Bang Theory or Two And A Half Men on different channels at the same time and it's minor news when any of them leave a streaming platform.) When you add in their film division, don't forget Netflix has internal metrics on their median subscriber's film preferences. There's no way they are bidding for WB without knowing their subscribers want more *Batman*/*Superman*/*Harry Potter*/*King Kong*/*Godzilla*/*Friday the 13th*/*Nightmare on Elm Street*/*It*/etc and that other outlets want to air/stream them from time to time. Not to mention the cherry on top: Warner Brother's legendary film studio, backlots & production capabilities, which will lower Netlfix's in-house production costs if they synergize productions as is expected. They are buying the bullets (the archives of these in demand shows and the rights to the IP) and a bullet maker (Warner Bros film studio & assets). As a WBD shareholder I can confidently say Netflix is the best custodian if WB must be sold.

yeehawbudd

Even if they can create masterful IP there will be huge backlash so I’d hard agree with you.

Lord_Rictor

Because IP is still king. In fact the AI makes it even more valuable cuz you can create the special effects and the actual show itself for cheaper but you still want to have the good IP. I've yet to see AI create any IP.

GongTzu

As little as I don’t like Netflix to take over WB, I really dislike that the Ellisons will gather more IP and control more entertainment

Soossaaaa

If they win the acquisition shareholders lose with debt issuance and dilution. They'll also need massive amounts of cash to fund these new IPs. If they lose, a competitor has a better catalog of IP and Netflix is now #2 in content.

ShadowLiberal

If someone ever makes true AGI (which is an AI that can think for itself like a real human), then IMO it'll really show some major problems with our current IP laws. As an example, if a human borrows a book from the library and memorizes it, and is able to recite the book perfectly word for word to someone else, have they violated the author's copyright? Obviously you're going to say no, that's absolutely absurd. But what if we create a true AGI, and give it a humanoid body, and that AGI borrows the same book from the library and "reads" it. Due to how machines work the AGI will have a copy of that book in their memory and be able to recall it perfectly at any time and recite it back to anyone. So has the AGI violated the author's copyright? And if so why is it a violation of copyright law for the AGI to memorize the book but not the human? Is the fact that it'll take the human a lot more time to memorize it the reason why it's ok for the human to do it but not the AGI? It's the same thing with music. If a human listens to a song off of Spotify that's perfectly legal, but if an AGI listens to the song it's suddenly not legal because it can remember the song perfectly. So yeah, under current copyright laws no matter how you create an AGI, it would basically be illegal for them to exist IMO because they wouldn't be able to stop themselves from constantly memorizing a ton of copyrighted material that they haven't paid for.

Soossaaaa

I know everyone is super bullish here but NFLX is in a lose-lose situation. They either have to issue debt or dilute to fund the acquisition or risk a competitor getting massive IP.

ThinkingOfTheOldDays

> There is evidence that countries getting richer makes them more liberal Not in China. And that process you mentioned occured entirely under the context of American global supremacy. It's not unreasonable to think a country getting richer under the context of multi-polarity makes them more of a threat to the US & Euro alliance, not less so. > I get cheap shit  I don't view this as a win anymore. If we get our full military supply chain back into the US or at least LatAm, I will feel more comfortable buying cheap shit for USD IOUs.  The manufacturing powerhouse becomes the military powerhouse, a la the arsenal of democracy meme from the last century. > Innovation is driven by competition Competition for profits maybe. When China intentionally copies & produces Western IP at low or no profits, on top of intentionally suppressing their currency, there is no free trade environment to seek out. Innovation does come from IQ, definitionally. It's not a surprise to me that basically all innovations the last 2000 years come from Chinese, European or Japanese people, no matter where they live.  Mango is rolling out tariffs in an incoherent manner. > The trade surplus is made up The mathematical identity of capital / current account being equalized is not what they meant.  They meant international trade should not create current account / goods surplus. Look it up. David Ricardo's views specifically. > closer to free trade we can get the better. I don't necessarily agree. And global happiness via trade maximization is not my goal. China is a mega polluter, retards dumping trash into the Ganges and various other river systems are retards etc.  I want these economies and populations to be much smaller for that and other reasons. > trade deficit is bad. But why? Manufacturing powerhouse becomes the military powerhouse, via the arsenal of democracy theory. > This system has made the US the richest country in the world. Paper wealth, and one in which our assets are structurally overbid and owned by foreigners. Affects home buying, affects fertility, affects cohesion at home. Etc.  The issue is moreso that we've reached a peak of that production / wealth model, and Chinese supply chains make a huge amount of components that go into US weapons.  That can't stand and you agree, but the same factories, accessory tech, and feedstocks in China that make the weapons components also make your cheap widgets. Simply stupid to continue empowering a peer rival in China. I do wish the admin had many overtures to the whole world to unite in tariffs against China first, rather than US tariffing the whole world, and bananas, at the outset. That's why I think mango and the admin are corrupt / stupid, not the institution of tariffs themselves. Nearshoring will be done in LatAm markers that China hasn't already bought up with our USD IOUs. Canada and Mexico are both affected by Chinese money. 

Rock_or_Rol

Supposedly, we are one breakthrough away from LLMs training themselves in a loop… which would change the world overnight It’d be like comparing modern IP to the 1800s once that happens. Energy, coding, robotics, biomed.. all advancing at breakneck speeds The question is, when is that breakthrough? Next month? Next year? Next decade?

ThinkingOfTheOldDays

Disney owns Winnie the Pooh I think, not that unusual to avoid IP infringement risk

fenwickfox

Even analysts r wary of yhe WB deal, so down it goes, but it will materialize. Its not like WB was a good steward of IP. Me and some coworkers worked on some of the movies they just wrote off and didnt release in theaters like the road runner movie. At least Netflix will stream the damn thing.

kool_mandate

Yes but that’s different from total privacy Someone using chat gdp directly , or with copilot (non enterprise) or with anthropic or with Gemini or with grok , Even if you say “don’t use my data to train models “ The data is accessible on their servers. If you use certain flagged key words , their safety team might review your conversations, or they might just do a qa check. I’m not saying your data is exploited , it just isn’t confidential. Maybe most people don’t care. But some people , especially people like me that use AI for specific business or IP use-cases , do care

empireofadhd

I don’t think the chineese companies care at all about IP. For American companies they can probably just buy it and from companies that take on the legal risks.

MtGloomy0420

Corning just came out with the cable. You think the large hyperscalers are going to trust a company like $POET to interface with the Corning cables? No, they’ll just hand the $POET product and IP to Corning and that will be that!

Accidental-Genius

For Google to die they would need a disruptor. Who is positioned to replace Google? Who has the scale, the capital, the infrastructure, the IP, the expertise, and the market saturation? Who would convince the millions of people locked into the Google universe through photos, sheets, Gmail to abandon ship? Even if Gemeni fails entirely, Google will be fine. This is like saying Microsoft was in danger because Clippy might never take off.

TheCoyotl

I don’t think it’s just CNN. They really want the whole IP goldmine WB has. Mainly for agitprop for Trump I assume.

Character_Set3454

Yea Netflix should walk lol. Buy the IP in a few years for much cheaper. 

crashddr

This is what baffled me the most about the Disney - OAI "deal". Disney has basically everything to lose by diluting their IP with endless AI content.

3facesofBre

Likely, PSKY does collapse, but WBD isn’t likely to cut from NFLX this is a token effort to avoid litigation from the so-called activist shareholders (who own a small amount of WBD compared to the other close to 95% voting PSKY down). But, if they move towards PSKY, NFLX gets a 2.8 billion dollar breakup fee that pairs nicely with LION which has solid IP and no regulatory issues.

Strong-Reputation380

To an extend you are correct. They really want the news division but require the IP library to offset the expected losses from turning the news division into a propaganda machine. It’s not about making money, but they still need to make money to make it work, otherwise, as any negotiator knows, the most logical solution is Netflix takes the IP library and Ellison takes the news division.

AutoCodes

As a shareholder that would worry me. I get the IP value, but overpaying for old catalog content feels risky. Younger audiences might not care. I’d rather see Netflix spend on new hits than nostalgia.

Tha_Sly_Fox

HBO has already been selling off its valuable IP, I can only imagine how it’ll happen after all this

User-NetOfInter

Pick up the IP on the cheap in a few years once crippling debt crushes them

ian9outof10

I think the thing is, the bit of Warner that Netflix is buying isn’t really the cursed bit. Netflix gets a premium channel in HBO, and a movie studio with IP. That is a sane purchase. If Netflix wants to make money, it can licence the movie library to other companies and do fine. The bits Netflix doesn’t want, the channels, is the bit that has a less than bright future anyway.

ShittyUsernane1222

My opinion on AI and Copyright is simple: \-Fuck Copyright and IP laws \-All AI models should be open source, for public benefit and public domain for they use public data and public resources.

Heyhayheigh

Keep a mini pc that is always on in USA to remote into. Pretend to be in USA lolol. USA brokers are a total pain when you me IP is out of USA. The experience will always be trash. Then the required withholding, or they will just make you switch brokers. They just don’t want to deal with the reporting and the KYC risk.

VoidAndOcean

Let me be as clear as possible: Seedance 2.0 is great for youtube and horrible for netflix. IP does not matter anymore when fanfiction can be visualized.

Kistoff

Whoa whoa whoa! OPs been hitting it hard for at least 4 years now! >Those of us that have tried psychedelics, does this give us a big edge over analysts / wall street? >You need an edge in the investing world. There are usually three edges people use: >1. Information Edge 2. Analytical Edge 3. Behavioral Edge >I won’t go into each one, but I think if you have tried psychedelics, we have an information edge on Wall Street. Most Wall Street analysts, hedge fund managers, doctors, psychiatrists, even those working in this field, have likely never done LSD or mushrooms. >Those of us that have done them, WE KNOW THEY WILL WORK. We don’t have to rely on studies or projections, we just know. That gives us a big edge over most the market. >The only things I worry about is the timing (will there be a better entry price later?), government stepping in and making illegal, and IP between the companies. >Those are big questions. But the biggest question in biotech is usually will this pass trials and eventually get approved by the FDA? I feel really confident about that. THATS OUR EDGE.

ThinkingOfTheOldDays

I did. It's not reasonable to describe Iz Reali IP addresses as originating and articulating far right conspiracies on 4cjan or elsewhere when the arguments existed prior to the broad expansion of the consumer internet. They post inter racial porn, not thought leadership. Bannon is exposed and I hope he swings.

meridian_smith

They completely disregard copyright laws and IP. ....that does not make it better.

hammeredtrout1

100%. I think a lot of it also has to do with a lack of IP laws in China

WorkSucks135

>Id like them to start using AI to create new stuff on the cheap, without huge sets or actors etc. throwing enough compute at entertainment generation has to be a profitable system at some point. That's where things will be in 10-15 years. And it can all be bespoke single use media. "Make me a comedic who-done-it in the Harry Potter universe shot in the style of Denis Villanueva" and it will spit out a feature length film in 2 minutes. That's where having a huge catalog of IP is the trump card.

ShittyUsernane1222

\> Scam altman crashing out on deepseek v4 release and alleging IP violations scammy is an hypocrite of the highest degree. Trains an AI model on public data, advertises as OpenAI and yet refuses to publish open source AI models.

kool_mandate

I’m avoiding ADBE , but value of customer IP protection is one of the best points I’ve heard.

Dumbest_Degenerate

I didn’t read any of that but when you have a company’s name become an action verb: Google it Netflix and chill I’ll grab an uber That company is there to stay. Netflix thesis simple, WBD fixes their weakness: studio and IP. Outside of that, they’ve been executing. Ad business is under monetized and should only canine to grow.

Icy-Sheepherder-7595

Doesn't Adobe have something similar? I know this isn't about them but I bought some ADBE on the same logic that it's ubiquitous across the business world and the added IP protection. Can't see corporate America using any other alternative because of that even if it's free. My old company was very protective of the data that was on that computer and pretty much everything except Microsoft and Adobe for AI was blocked.

rooftop_druid

When more kids know which brain rot character just came out this week than what 50+ year old superhero they like best I think the “franchises” ideology is massively overblown. Why spend $$$$$ for IP to get engagement when you can get about 90% of the same engagement for $ off completely dumb shit you generate in minutes? Idk. NFLX has had its day and its growth on the market. Entertainment media is always changing and I don’t see these guys as something to treat as a surefire bit of parabolic growth from where they are now.

Sufficient-Aide6805

What looks solid about Netflix? Massive shifts in tech are underway. There’s a new streaming platform every day. Its IP is worthless within a year of release. This could just as easily be the beginning of the end as a beginning of a pump.

BluePrintSpec

An analogy is the fad in the 1995-2005 era to outsource engineering work at big engineering firms rather than keep it in house. With that transition, junior engineers learned to write and administer contracts rather than actually do the work. Senior engineers could properly oversee these outsourced contracts since they had first hard experience in how to do the job. It turns out that was a bad business plan since it just added a very inefficient layer of bureaucracy, adding lots of cost and schedule to the bigger task. It also was a huge outflow of precious IP. So the CEOs decided to undo the jobs and bring them back in-house in the 2010's. The problem is that they couldn't. It was too late. The institutional knowledge was gone. The senior engineers had all retired, and all the junior engineering staff knew was contract administration. With that, generations of hard to acquire capability was gone.

Icy_Jelly_315

So what? If a Temu stealth fighter kills yo ass dead you don't come back to life because there was IP rights infringements involved. Also you are using an iPhone which you know was made by foxconn slave labor so fuck you

TechTuna1200

1) There are human rights abuses in erasing culture for sure, but it's disputed whether there is slave labour. There is an accusation, but no final proof. At least they are funding the full-blown genocide of the Palestinian people like the Western countries, which is well-documented and indisputable. 2) Chinese companies' IP infringment on Western companies has been handled in court within China, with the Western companies winning and being awarded damages. So your idea that chinese companies just steal IPs left and right is just bullshit. They are not behind, they are in front. They have better tech. Deepseek is just one example. [https://yciplaw.com/successful-ip-disputes-chinese-law-firms](https://yciplaw.com/successful-ip-disputes-chinese-law-firms)

Icy-Sheepherder-7595

Using Muslim slave labor and infringing on IP patents is just competition now? Thats news to me

Icy-Sheepherder-7595

Yeah now go to the Tier 4 city where the Uighur slave camps are. China is on the rise but it's not all roses and butterfly's. The major issue I see with China is that most of their good stuff that they export is actually just ripped off of western IP's. Much of the car tech is ripped off from Tesla and other companies, the phones are the same story. The EU has placed 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's as a starting point. The western world isn't going to allow them to just copy everything we built and then sell it back to us for cheaper.

KorkyBuchekStan

The two worries I had about TSMC were China and also the possibility of someone inside stealing a lot of IP then taking it with him to a rival company. I guess those are unfounded because it has been ripping. Wish I invested more earlier.

YoloPutsJager

Good thing I already have a ten-year record of creating Value as an entrepreneur. I already have angel cheques, people are backing me not because of my trades but because of who I am. And yeah, I'm raising on quant IP, it's different when we are talking about Sharpe’s above 4, which is what I’d be raising on and not discussing publicly. I trade vol man, 0dte is a hobby.

orsomeshitidk

Half their IP being obviously stolen American shit makes it pretty obvious they’re doing all they can imo

ShadowLiberal

It's not a surprise at all that the export ban policy is failing, we've already played this game and seen the same result. China wanted to take part in the construction of the International Space Station a few decades ago, but the US refused, citing concerns that they'd steal others IP. The end result? China built their own space station, and in part because it took them longer to build then it took us to build the ISS it has more advanced technology than the ISS. So blocking China from participating in it failed to accomplish anything in the long term.

No-Importance-7691

I work with IP lawyers worldwide. I discontinue work with about 50% and maybe 10% should be in prison for fraud. I have received thousands of USD in reimbursements. I see lawyers of third parties failing at basic filings, failing at following official guidelines and clear instructions. I receive warnings of everything and the opposite, to avoid any liability, so opinions are mostly useless even when they are not plain wrong. The response time is often measured in months. For many applications AI would be "good enough" considering the costs and delays from a business perspective. And if you manually summarize cases and create drafts for hundreds of USD per hour instead of using AI that is wasting my resources and should be unacceptable. AI can't replace a good lawyer but could significantly reduce billable hours, which is not something lawyers want.

nolwad

Are you responding to the last sentence I made? The joke? Also, I’m aware what goes on in defense. I worked in hardware engineering at one of our biggest defense contractors and now at a smaller one. Privatization doesn’t really make a difference for funding defense. It seems like you’ve implied that privatization is the reason it absolutely needs money or why the government doesn’t own supply, even though they do actually own the IP in general and are moving to own it more since the F35 LM IP issues. I digress though, they need to pay people regardless, even if the dod was developing and building it themselves, or if they were government owned companies, or with private ones like we have. I think privatization actually helped make things better. Take a look at Cold War procurement versus procurement since the government made contractors merge post Cold War. Clearly more companies meant more competition, and thus more innovation and cost effectiveness and less overruns. And side note Raytheon doesn’t make jets, or any planes for that matter. RTX makes jet engines through P&W, but out of the big 5 aerospace contractors they’re the only one that isn’t a prime for planes.

YoloPutsJager

Why would I give you my IP to back test lmao, if it's working and I have an edge why would I 1. Ever sell it 2. Give it away. I'm not selling this idea, I am posting an educational video on how I look at 0dte spy. And if you watch it I specifically say “I did this because it is a popular topic” I mostly trade volatility products and have done so for a decade. Spy 0dte is easy because I have an edge on vol, vol can predict spy, the vol of vol vvix is predictive.

Soossaaaa

NFLX is in a lose-lose situation. Massive debt to cover acquisition and creating shows/movies with new IP or risk a competitor having better content.

Clear-West747

I must be having a stroke. This can’t be a real Spider-Man reboot. Sony’s IP needs to be seized and Amazon fined 8 billion dollars

cultoftheclave

OpnSense or OpenWRT on your router (or in your wan pipeline somewhere) with Adguard and IP blacklist modules enabled. One shot kill for all devices downstream.

miseducation

Netflix has traded at Meta, Amazon multiples like 30x forever. Disney is probably the closest competitor and they're at 15x at best. Tech giants are maturing as businesses and Netflix is starting to be repriced more accurately in the same way that we've seen across non AI tech the last year. A more realistic multiple is pretty good for the core business considering that in the last 5 years: \- Market share dropped as Disney+, Paramount, HBO Max, Apple TV+ spent hundreds of billions to compete. \- Prices of subscriptions increased 40-60% depending on the plan. \- Number of global subscribers still doubled from 158-325m. \- Competitors have lost money funding their competing services and still have quite a bit to invest if they hope to catch up. I can't think of a good reason for them to lose significant revenue in the next five years. Their costs per asset are only going to shrink considering that they're consolidating the competition in WB, vertically integrating more studios, crews, production lots in huge build outs across the world, facing much weaker resistance from unions who have been annihilated post writer's strike. No promises whatsoever of explosive growth unless you think the ad platform and live sports have a lot to grow but no reason to doubt the core business will get anything but cheaper to produce and more profitable. WB acquisition brings some ugly debt but outside of IP it also brings the kind of prestige in AAA movies they have tried and failed to reproduce on their end. Content licensing outside of Netflix is also a new revenue channel since they would inherit those. Folks outside of the film business always: \- Overrate the potential of AI as disruptive to studios and distributors when they stand the most to gain from cheaper costs. \- Underrate how much Covid killed what was left of the legacy film industry in favor of streamers. \- Underrate how the writer's strike cemented their market position as the leader. Before the strike the major streamers were in a Mexican standoff to see who could fund more content. After the strike they never brought production costs back up to the old spend levels, and since they killed legacy film during covid, something like 50% of the writers/actors/directors who were striking would never get another gig again.

Front-Page_News

KULR Should Sell Its Bitcoin and Go All-In on AI Data Center Battery Infrastructure I’m long KULR. I like the tech. I like the space pedigree. I even understand the logic behind the Bitcoin treasury strategy. But I’m starting to think it’s time for KULR to seriously consider selling a large portion (or all) of its Bitcoin and redeploying that capital into battery backup infrastructure for AI data centers. Here’s why. 1. The Market Is Valuing AI Infrastructure Higher Than BTC Treasury Exposure Look at what’s happening across the industry: AI compute demand is exploding. Data centers are power constrained. Grid stability is becoming mission critical. Backup power and battery storage are no longer “nice to have” — they’re existential. Meanwhile, public markets are rewarding companies with direct exposure to AI infrastructure far more consistently than companies holding digital assets on their balance sheet. Even companies like Riot Platforms and IREN have started pivoting toward AI data centers. That’s not random. That’s capital markets signaling where value is migrating. KULR already has the core competency: high-performance battery systems designed for extreme environments. That translates directly to high-reliability BBU (battery backup unit) systems for AI-scale facilities. Why stay half-in on Bitcoin when the real structural growth is in AI power infrastructure? 2. Bitcoin Is Volatile. AI Power Demand Is Structural. Bitcoin may go up. It may go down. It’s unpredictable over short-to-medium horizons. But AI power demand? That’s locked in. Companies like NVIDIA are effectively selling out high-performance GPUs as fast as they can manufacture them. Hyperscalers are racing to build capacity. Power availability is the bottleneck. AI clusters need: Instant failover High-density energy storage Thermal management Compliance (UL 9540/9540A, etc.) Modular scalability This is literally where KULR’s DNA lives. Instead of defending a BTC position, why not fund: Manufacturing expansion for BBUs Data center partnerships Pilot deployments UL-certified scalable modules AI-specific energy storage architecture That’s recurring revenue infrastructure. Not a balance sheet asset. 3. The Narrative Shift Could Re-rate the Stock Right now, KULR gets lumped into: “Battery safety” “Small cap BTC treasury” “Speculative hybrid” But imagine this headline instead: “KULR Exits Bitcoin Treasury Strategy to Fund Scalable AI Data Center Battery Infrastructure Platform” That’s a completely different investor base. You go from crypto-adjacent capital to: AI infrastructure funds Energy storage investors Data center REIT-adjacent capital Institutional infrastructure allocators The multiple expansion potential there is materially different. 4. Capital Allocation Is Strategy Holding Bitcoin is passive. Building AI infrastructure is active. One compounds if BTC rises. The other compounds through: Contracts Multi-year supply agreements Embedded energy systems Replacement cycles Service revenue If KULR truly believes in its battery architecture and thermal management IP, deploying capital into owned infrastructure or long-term BBU contracts creates durable enterprise value. Bitcoin doesn’t create customer relationships. Battery infrastructure does. 5. This Doesn’t Have to Be All or Nothing Maybe the answer isn’t “sell all BTC tomorrow.” But reallocating a significant portion into: AI-focused BBU manufacturing scale Joint ventures with data center operators On-site storage + resiliency packages Telecom and edge compute backup solutions …feels more aligned with where secular growth is heading. Final Thought Bitcoin might go to $200K. Maybe higher. But AI compute demand is already here. Power constraints are already here. Data center bottlenecks are already here. If I’m KULR management, I ask: Are we trying to be a Bitcoin holding company… Or are we trying to be a critical infrastructure provider in the AI era? Because the market will likely reward one of those more consistently than the other. Curious what everyone else thinks.

ferracattack

Restaurant sales are up 4.7% YoY as of Dec ‘25 https://restaurant.org/research-and-media/research/restaurant-economic-insights/economic-indicators/total-restaurant-industry-sales/ APP is a perfect example of a company that isn’t protected from AI advancement. The entire value prop is around IP that allows them to target ads better than competitors. If AI can do that, then why would I pay APP for that service?

Super-Extent-1210

If nflx was a growth company it wont spend 80 or 90 billion dollars to acquire IP. the growth days are in the past. Even Amazon and Apple can make good TV shows now.

fallingdowndizzyvr

> my understanding is that the AI strategy being adopted in China is focused more on specialized industrial use cases as opposed to big bang LLMs. Maybe I'm wrong You are wrong. GLM-5 dropped today. It goes toe to toe with anything else available. https://github.com/zai-org/GLM-5/blob/main/resources/bench.png Even with the original Deepseek, American companies were incorporating it's innovations into US sourced models. Since they could be Chinese companies open source their models. Deepseek went above and beyond that by holding a series of "How to make your own Deepseek." posts. They released their IP for the world to use.

Pristine_Hurry_4693

**DRTS’s clinical, regulatory, financial and commercial achievements and progress:** ‏FDA Breakthrough Device Designation ‏FDA TAP program inclusion ‏FDA MDSAP certification ‏FDA IDE’s for **five** cancers and counting ‏**FDA PHASE 3** completion in H1 2026 ‏FDA Phase 2 and other stages of trials going on in parallel for different indications (cancer types) ‏FDA approval for commercial factory in the US, with other factories built and more in planing ⁠100% tumor response rate in early FDA trials ‏Effective against all tumor types, including the most high unmet needs like Pancreas, Lungs, Brain (GBM), Breast etc… ‏Activates immune system ⁠**55+ clinical sites worldwide** (including USA, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan…) ‏Patents, IP and more…

Pristine_Hurry_4693

**DRTS’s clinical, regulatory, financial and commercial achievements and progress:** ‏FDA Breakthrough Device Designation ‏FDA TAP program inclusion ‏FDA MDSAP certification ‏FDA IDE’s for **five** cancers and counting ‏**FDA PHASE 3** completion in H1 2026 ‏FDA Phase 2 and other stages of trials going on in parallel for different indications (cancer types) ‏FDA approval for commercial factory in the US, with other factories built and more in planing ⁠100% tumor response rate in early FDA trials ‏Effective against all tumor types, including the most high unmet needs like Pancreas, Lungs, Brain (GBM), Breast etc… ‏Activates immune system ⁠**50+ clinical sites worldwide** (including USA, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan…) ‏Patents, IP and more…

myinternets

They are inches away from selling off IP to pay the bills. I wouldn't touch it, falling knife and all

fringeffect

But what does it mean when a company takes the investments at a loss? The spent it on development and production capacity. That IP and assets still exist. So why is the accounting trick? Why do this? To clean a balance sheet?

nex2kal

20ish years ago the European Union was able to implement a common currency (the Euro) . Before that, every single country had its own coin and own value, meaning, one Euro had different value on each country. The implementation was smooth and sucesfull Furthermore, the EU is also a leader on Electronic Payment solutions. Try to search for SEPA and SEPA IP for example.

Academic_Release5134

You can thank Elon. He went to China. They stole all of his IP and methods. And then the Chinese govt saw a huge opening in the electric car business that Trumo was too stupid to understand.

Napster-mp3

Submitted a lot of documentation with proof of customer feedback, IP address stuff, etc.

TheBioethicist87

yeah, bitcoin being used by traditional finance (yet another way it's just come back around to the same structures it claims to fight against) doesn't necessarily mean that's the moment it was no longer obscure. Bitcoin was well-known and was 11 years into its existence in 2020. There were industrial bitcoin mining facilities in 2020. What I meant by bringing NFTs into it was that the crypto landscape was popping off as much as it ever has been. Investment banks are doing what investment banks do, which is finding way to move money from hand to hand. If people want to gamble on bitcoin, then they'll give you a bitcoin ETF with a GIANT 0.25% expense ratio so they can take their cut too. There are many theories about this code the same way as there are many theories about the shape of the earth. The code wasn't sample code, they wrote it. At the time, online poker was huge, and sites were being shut down and assets were being seized by the US Department of Justice even when they were operating from Tuvalu or wherever. The context around that time, down to the month, for designing an un-seizable currency that wasn't regulated makes perfect sense. Even the people discussing the code on that forum believe it's overwhelmingly likely the code was about poker given the number of references and elements included. Deny it if you want, but it won't be because you're right. Bitcoin ETFs are the gambling part. If you invest in a stock or some real asset, the price you pay is based on the actual value of that thing divided by the number of shares outstanding. Companies have cash on hand, real estate, inventory, IP, and then there's the speculative value. You can argue over how much those things are worth, but there is a range to those values. Bitcoin has none of those things. It's a 2 column spreadsheet. The only basis for its price is what the next biggest idiot is willing to pay for it. Every buy order is no more than a spin on a roulette wheel.

Mental-At-ThirtyFive

it is not what you have, rather what you do with it - that is the curse of IP

ragnaroksunset

Makes you wonder why America is working hard to make people want to care about IP rights even less

whatsupmon420

While the core of my point can be undercut by your statement, I can still say, the clear change is Hasbro's strategy, to both, anchor their wallstreet financials to MTG in a way that they never did for the first 25 years, and at the same time, to over print and dilute the IP that is the basis for that revenue stream. It's a short term push for revenue to sustain the stock price for as long as possible. You have cardboard competing with AI for market cap. Come on man, out down the glue.

whatsupmon420

That's a totally fair point to make. Counterspell. Wizards of the coast loved their IP which allowed it to sustain through unpopular sets. Hasbro doesn't and their products reek of greed. It's a total mess as someone who's been playing for 30 years. I'm your canary in the coal mine.

NoWarmEmbrace

Hates what Hasbro does to MTG, to D&D, to the toy division..It's a bad company in general with great IP

Nelsons93

They just announced they’ve secured a patent notice from IP Australia for the Reqorsa combo (locking down that market alongside the US & Korea) and they’ve opened a new trial site at the University of Kentucky. The patent is great for the long-term moat, but honestly, the new trial site is the key here. More sites = faster enrollment = getting to that data sooner. They are still targeting 2H 2026 for the interim analysis. Good to see them actually executing on the timeline. Bricks in the wall. 🧱 #GNPX #Biotech #Stocks https://www.genprex.com/2026/02/10/genprex-announces-ip-australias-intent-to-grant-patent-for-reqorsa-gene-therapy-in-combination-with-pd-l1-antibodies-to-treat-cancers/

Nelsons93

They just announced they’ve secured a patent notice from IP Australia for the Reqorsa combo (locking down that market alongside the US & Korea) and they’ve opened a new trial site at the University of Kentucky. The patent is great for the long-term moat, but honestly, the new trial site is the key here. More sites = faster enrollment = getting to that data sooner. They are still targeting 2H 2026 for the interim analysis. Good to see them actually executing on the timeline. Bricks in the wall. 🧱 #GNPX #Biotech #Stocks https://www.genprex.com/2026/02/10/genprex-announces-ip-australias-intent-to-grant-patent-for-reqorsa-gene-therapy-in-combination-with-pd-l1-antibodies-to-treat-cancers/

TAKINAS_INNOVATION

Ideally you’d want to control both because IP allows you to go off into other revenue streams. Spotify can’t do anything besides subscriptions and advertising to diversify their revenue streams. I saw they’re trying to sell physical books on their platform to get creative. Kind of weird.

FarrisAT

Owning the IP really is overrated. It’s the distribution channel that matters.