Right and you should be able to make copies of Atlas Shrugged I and II with you're own equipment and steal their creation. You should be able to sell Atlas Shrugged the book as long as it is your own paper.

You make a great apologist for the second hander.

GET SERIOUS

Sure altruism has proven to be such a wise philosophy

No I have answered them and their response has been that inventors should be altruist who do not receive any return for their work and where every second hander can pretend they are inventor of something that has already been created.

A theory of epistemology is a description, it does not have an objective result. It is like geometry, it is a logical description and it is objective in its approach, but it does not have an objective result like an incandescent light bulb, which always gives off light when the correct voltage and electricity is applied.

I never admitted anything of the sort. In fact every example given in the Rational Optimist had multiple patents. The evidence is overwhelming patents are key drivers for inventors. To suggest otherwise is like the socialists who always have an excuse why it always fails.

You guys are impervious to logic and evidence, so it is impossible to have a rational discussion.

There are independent "second' inventors. Did you see what I said about "no second prize"? I also claimed that investigating "second" claims to separate independenys from criminal impostors would be impractical and got accused of being immoral. You just accused me of promoting altruism and not being serious. I dislike that style od discussing things very much, so I will not discuss with you any more. Parting friends.

Excellent point about the propeller.

Counselor, you are up against a wall. Several other objectivists here have asked questions you could not answer. Others have pointed out flaws in your logic. More importantly, many of us (but not you) have identified errors in current law as applied. You have never offered an objective theory or framework for intellectual property laws.

Just for instance: What objectively differentiates a patentable idea from a copyright? I know how they are operationally different today. Rand herself said that you cannot prevent someone from knowing what they know once they learn it. True though that is, you _can_ prevent them from repeating it. If you can patent software, why not a theory of epistemology?

You have admitted that a slew of basic ideas - such as bakelite - were never patented, but that a large inventory of _derivative inventions_ based on them were patented. Is that not a conceptual contradiction? A patent is supposed to be not knowable to any capable practitioner of the art. The word is "knowable" - not "known." Knowable. How do we know what is knowable to another person, unless we apply some (gratefully, unpatented) theory of epistemology? What is the standard for knowability?

Dale, once again, you jump on a detail and miss the wider truth. We already discussed the fact that the Wrights tried to claim that their "wing warping" covered Glenn Curtiss's ailerons. And that was all I meant. I already pointed out that they failed to identify their propeller as a true invention. So, everyone else could use the same concepts and basic designs with impunity. Imagine if the Wright Brothers had controlled the propeller via patent.

It makes logical sense.

Hey- what could be a compliment to me could invite legal action from DBH for a demeaning comparison!
This is a brilliant thread, it enables all kinds of philosophy to come out, some it relevant.

If there is a question of who should get legal protection for discovering America, it is not relevant to argue about Columbus, Leif Ericcson, or the tens of thousands of years earlier groups who crossed over from NE Asia, all were independent of the others. I have to disagree with DBH, many discoveries and inventions have many parents, it a result of some questions being topical, so many solutions get offered. But as to sharing the results equally, or even according to the value of the work put in, no.

The Wright Bros did not invent flight, they got airborne from their own power, they made the first powered controlled sustained flight (I think it is defined). The difference between the Wrights and many predecessors is that their work enabled flight for trade. Many deserve accolades and medals, but only the Wrights should get legal protection.
So, what I reckon the role of law should be is to protect intellectual property but only with respect to the ability to earn money income.

Right, I hear this from all sorts of people who say they are not interested in money, while they are making money from their business.

You guys want an altruistic version of property rights for inventor. Everyone can be considered an inventor no matter how they created someone else's invention. You want a system where everyone gets a trophy and no one gets a return for their efforts. I reject altruism in all areas.

Not exactly. But its term is so short that it give immediate heirs time to recoup the inventor's investment.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Are you against inheriting things that provide value without effort? Gold coins will roughly hold their value, but not provide any new value. A conservative stock portfolio will keep providing value without effort.

Do patents expire on death?

Wrong. There is no such thing as the second inventor anymore than there is the second discoverer of Newtonian mechanics. But yes, having settle property rights is important. If anyone who comes along and improves your house can claim ownership in it, who will build a house, who will lend to buy a house, who will rent the house.

You are not serious, you are pushing an Libertarian altruistic rant.

Mike,

Once again you prove your ignorance of patents. The Wright brothers did not try to patent everything about an airplane, only those things they invented - lateral control system most importantly

Nonsense, you can't develop my land after I own it. I might be using it for ranching, but you come along and turn it into a farm. You argue that you were the one that developed it with your own labor and materials.

Robbie you are not serious.

Actually you have no idea why he invented. Most people who invent have to pay other bills. Your point of view constrains inventing to the wealthy. Your example is anecdotal cherry picking. And you don't know that he didn't invent to make money. Are you saying he could not use the money to further his race career.

Your example is fantasy altruistic nonsense.

There are very few inventions you can afford to build just for yourself.