I judge regional science fairs and I have seen bright kids from small towns in the middle of nowhere who got no mentoring but did good, original work... that had been done before. The so-called "Lockean theory" that you create value by "mixing your labor" would validate such independent inventions and discoveries as the rightful property of such creators as well.

Regarding Ramanujan, how many proofs of the Pythagorean theorem have you seen? The Wright Brothers wanted to patent everything derived from the idea of the airplane. Applied to the Pythagorean Theorem only one person would be allowed to own all of the possible proofs no matter how derived or presented. The analogy to physical objects is quite clear. It is generally true that in order to be a faithful copyist, a true second-hander, you must slavishly follow the original model and not put a single nuance into it. That seldom happens. In fact, the general rule appears to be that every so-called "copy cat" puts something new and different of themselves in the derivative work.

The moral thing would be for everybody to behave morally. We cannot find even just 535 of them who would all behave morally. It would be even more immoral to have no property protection for the inventors.

It seem to me that Objectivism correctly recognizes that your two inventors own each their inventions. The patent system, I think, wishes to avoid getting into discernig between the genuin second inventors and criminal copiers. The first inventor "won the race" and there are no second prizes. If there were, can you imagine the multiplicity of criminals claiming that they are the silver medalists? It might look like Boston marathon. I am certainly not a lawyer (thank Heavens!) but, to me, the logic of practicality seems pretty straightforward.

Exactly right! See my response to Lucky and DB of an hour of so ago, below.

Sorry, I garbled teh last part.
It should read: ... changed my mind? Does what I am trying to say ...

First, I am confused between the two of you (Lucky and DB). You are probably professionals in this field and use some terminology that I ignore, at least in part.
What I would like to say is this. If I am able to create, which means effort, and if I am a free man and able to think, I must decide, before I embark on that effort, why am I doing this? If I wish to sell it, I need to know if what I acheave is legally sellable. If I am doing it just for my own satisfaction, why would I care if somebody else copies my work? If he then starts selling it and I envy him, I have found out that I am not a very goof thinker. Why would the government want to help me attack the other guy? Just because I changed my mwhat I am trying to say make sense to you?

You should read Zorian Khan's "Democratization of Invention" and Jacob Schmookler Inventions and Economic Growth. Both of these economists studied motivations of inventors in depth. Almost all inventors are motivated by the ability to monetize their inventions. Partly, because that is the only way to obtain enough capital to actual build most inventions.

That said there are several papers on the rate of inventing before patent laws. These papers show that there is some natural (background) rate of invention and it is proportional to population and to a lesser degree population density.

Thank you, Lucky! [I wish I were like you. I always had to work very hard for everything I ever earned ;-)]

My point was that there are incentives and motives. Some creators may not need any incentives, only motives. Others may grumblingly respond to incentives. I just thought that the picture DB was painting was too much black and white.

If I were not so undisciplined I could click "unsubscribe" couldn't I? I enjoy the company and am willingly paying for it with my precious lifetime, or what's left of it (another wink).

The inventor, just like the discovery is the first person. You cannot discover something after it has been discovered.

I am not sure I understand you questions:

But,
a) Mathematics is copyrightable but not patentable.

b) Utilitarianism always leads to a dictatorship. However, there are no contradictions between what is right and what is good for humans under Rand's ethics.

Creation, not recreation or rediscovery is the source of property rights including patents and copyrights.

MM's point about Ramanujan is good. Ramanujan was a simply educated person who came across a geometry book, not a text but a summary, saw the statements of the theorems, and worked out the proofs for himself without help. He thus invented proofs for the fundamentals of geometry independently and went on to do original work himself in other areas of mathematics. He was 'discovered', taken to England, and died young of TB.

Suppose that sort of work was patentable or given copyright, what are the implications? You may argue that however brilliant, it had been done before and the law does not give prizes for second place. I would argue, it ain't necessarily so, by asking, what is 'it' in this case? The result- a proof of a theorem, or is it the method, in this case undoubtedly original?

Only mathematical statements- Only! As I suggest for considering Ramanujan, it is not statements that matter, it is the proof, or for software a specific sequence of statements/instructions that have a purpose, that fulfill an objective.
I do not see any definitive resolution coming out of Objectivism, development of existing law, or libertarianism. It is not that Rand was wrong, I do not see the kind of thinking going anywhere.

Do these rights, a type of or a sort of property right,
a) lead by logic to rules that can be put into law, or,
b) are there things related to certain human desires/objectives that we want to achieve, such as economic growth, reduce the power of the state, preserve property rights, liberty of the individual, or promotion of the common good?
I am suggesting the latter. So, I think for progress we need to use utilitarianism (no apology for the rude words).
I could be quite wrong.

Read what Rand say, which essentially is that when land or buildings etc are passed down, the child, grandchild, etc has to continue to provide effort and value for their return. But why should Edison's great grandchild receive value for the invention of high resistance incandescent light bulb, when they are not providing effort or value.

Martimus-
This comment- Fundamental principle of economics, people respond to incentives. Yes, but what are incentives? Money, property rights, the chance of money, the acclaim of others, the internal sense of achievement, are on the list. So the way I think agrees with your comment.
100 posts- careful, it may be habit forming. You will note that there is no member with exactly 100 posts proving it is not possible to stop (I got this argument from climate science).

I agree with the reasoning behind IP, but what you're saying makes it seem like an inferior type of property. Someone could make the same arguments about effortless possession in perpetuity to any assets. We could also make the argument that all assets, including IP, need some effort to maintain its productive value. Some things like gold coins don't require much effort.

I agree with the logic of the system we have now. I can't imagine aspirin still being patented. I can't imagine people developing new medicines without some period of patent protection.

I just don't understand the philosophical side. I would probably benefit from understanding more of the philosophy of real property. For some reason real property feels like a right, but IP feels like a very good policy idea.

Thanks--We're on the same page.

Dear Mike Marotta,
I concur with your appraisal of Von Mises position, but I find it more difficult to accept the contradictions regarding Rand.
It is true these were the words of Howard Roark's courtroom speech from the Fountainhead. And, I believe people pursue their work for many reasons and rewards, but Roark felt ownership of his work, his designs, to such a degree that he blew up the distortion of it, because he felt such a deep ownership. That is why he was in court. Certainly one may pursue their work for the sheer driving desire to create, but once created and recognizing the value, the desire to protect that value and reap the benefits are not contradictory to these words, IMHO. Some, like Franklin, would create and give away their creations freely (e.g., the lightening rod), but that is their choice. Speaking historically as Roark does, he is expressing the basic desire even prior to such protections. I do not see his words as explicitly or implicitly contrary to support for patent rights. The modern Patent protects that ownership so that one does not have to blowup a building to protect one's intellectual property. He has recourse in court.
Well, that is the way I see it; for what it is worth.
Respectfully,
O.A.

well he does spend lots of time on all of these related studies because it's not only his field but he also is in a battle over ideas. There are very few studies or articles from respected libertarian sources on the issue he has not gone over with a fine tooth comb. The Libertarian think tanks are letting us all down on this issue.

Surprise Surprise it is from CATO. There are many studies on point and the rate of technological growth correlates roughly to the population for millennia. Then with the advent of recognized rights in invention real per capita incomes take off, where there are property rights for inventions. Not where the largest populations are and disconnected from population for the first time in history. And what do you know it occurs where there are property rights for inventions.

Their point of view is completely inconsistent with Economist Zorina Khan http://www.amazon.com/The-Democratizatio..., in which she shows inventors and investors are motivated by patents. And we already know that the only way to increase real per capita incomes is by increasing your level of technology (which means inventions).

They also ignore the work of William Rosen's book the Most Powerful Idea "http://www.amazon.com/The-Most-Powerful-Idea-World/dp/0226726347

Their statement about property rights being the source of the Industrial Revolution is historical nonsense. Is inconsistent with the well established fact that new technologies are the only way to increase your standard of living.

So the connection is clear and JAMES BESSEN AND MICHAEL J. MEURER are ignoring the overwhelming evidence.

a) No. Because you hit a limit. So real per capita increase ONLY come from new technology.

b) NO, there had been property rights for hundreds of years in England - at least as strong or stronger than today.

c) No there is absolutely no evidence for you point of view. Yes you can start growth by copying other peoples technology, but only until you catch up.

d) Yeah, you can't have patent rights in the absence of property right in general. So what. France had more people, a stronger scientific base and the Industrial Revolution started in England and the US, because of property rights.


CBJ you are just like the AGW prophets and the Creationists. You can always make up another excuse, but you are immune to logic and reason on this subject.

a) Only partly true. Rises in per capita income can also occur if technology is stable and (non-patent) property rights are given more recognition, for example by lowering tax rates, stepping up enforcement against crime, and repealing economic regulations on business.

b) The industrial revolution coincided with the expanded recognition of property rights in general. Patents can’t take all the credit, and possibly not any of it.

c) Japan’s per capita income started to grow when it began adopting already existing technology on a wide scale. This would have occurred even if Japan had not copied the U.S. patent system.

d) The same can be said about countries that have the strongest recognition of non-patent property rights.

e) It’s true that enforcement of property rights for an asset will result in more investment in that asset, but it does not automatically follow that the asset in question is legitimate property. In early America, the institution of slavery led to the enforcement of property rights in slaves and to a high level of investment in slaves. This did not make them property in any moral sense.