Hi J,

The point of the patent system is to spread information so that others can build on it. To not build on the work of others is impossible. Your can't create something from nothing and even to communicate with other you have to use language developed by others. So I think it is perfectly consistent with Galt's ethics. Most inventors love to see their area of technology pushed forward as long as they are paid while their patent is in force. If you are writing a history it would be nice to mention the significant inventors whose work you built upon.

yes

Post! great discussion to have

yep

Robbie,

I think K would like you to make this into another post, because she thinks it would be interesting on its own.

That said, I have met/read some interesting thoughtful anarcho-libertarians who have come up with some interesting ideas. Including the novel Alongside Night. But some of them start sounding exactly like Marxists, including Stephen Kinsella who leads the Austrian charge against patents.

You make a great point. The patent is the property right. However, the economic consequence is that inventors are incentivized to invent-AND become inventors as a profession. That is the incentive as I see it- the ability to make it your job or business. Rand as well agreed. John Galt's profession was inventor. db is giving a talk on that very subject at the Atlas Summit this June.

Robbie,

You make a good and valid point. But from a marketing point of view most people will not pay attention to the title: "Patents like other Property Rights Restrict the Property Rights of the Non-Patent Holder."

Hello wmbelljratty,
Quite right. To be unequivocal, precise, the incentive is inherent in the protection provided.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Patents are not incentives. They are a recognition that the products of our minds belong to us, to use as we see fit. The only incentive part to a patent is that the government agrees to protect this right as long as the idea is made public, for others to learn and improve. That is what happens when you file a patent. The incentive is to make it public. Otherwise, all ideas would need to remain secret in order to protect them under current laws.

The immigration issue is a thorny one. I agree with much of what you said, khalling. I know many will disagree with me, but in addition to what you said, making it easier for foreign nationals who graduate from US universities on visas to become producers in this country would help immensely. When American immigration policy worked effectively, there was no welfare (I mean hammock) system in place, and the US objective was consistent with the Statue of Liberty. Now our immigration policy has become a tool for the looters to recruit more moochers to vote for the same looters.

The only time I can remember a case similar to your first paragraph, Blarman, was the invention of induced pluripotent stem cells back in 2007. You are correct. It would be a tough sell in a court of law.

I am quite comfortable with the American patent expiration limits (7 years for some inventions up to as high as 20 for drug discovery to account for the extended period of scrutiny of clinical trials).

If this next item should go into its own thread, I will gladly take it there.
I would like some feedback on the "Galt ethics" of the following.
I have two projects that students of mine are working on under my supervision
that I am funding myself. One involves an atomic force microscope - a tool
for looking at surfaces with near atomic resolution. The second involves
3D printers. Both were invented long enough ago that the main patents have
expired (The key patent on 3D printing expired within the last year.).
Regarding the 3D printer, my group has made an innovation to make 3D printers
print with a higher precision than what is out on the market, including those that
one can download instructions on how to make via open-sourced technology
(the main reason for putting this comment into this thread, as open-sourced
technology is the exact opposite of the traditional patent process). We've also
made a few changes that make 3D printers somewhat more robust and cost-effective.

Regarding the atomic force microscope, my student (a real John Galt in training) has come up with a process by which to make such a microscope far cheaper ($1000 in parts + his time vs. $40000 for a commercial-off-the-shelf system) than currently exists. His design looks quite different than the typical design, but it does have the same physics and all of the same functionality. My student built the proverbial "better mousetrap", but it is still a mousetrap.

Given that the patents have expired, I have no legal problems doing what I am doing,
but am I being consistent with my Galtish values? I think so, but I'm a little unsure.

Post!

Interesting. Perhaps I am listening to too few libertarians. I listen to Stossel quite a bit and he professes to be one, but he disagrees with others on his own show that also claim the title. I do not believe he would shoot your cow, or lay claim. I think there is much diversity of thought among them. This could be because of what you say. They are not all grounded upon the same philosophic foundations... Of course, not all those that appreciate objectivism adhere to all tenets either...

hi j and thanks for your take. I actually was referring the question to db. Surprisingly I'm not sure of his answer.
I tend to disagree with many in the Gulch over the immigration issue. But I keenly appreciate the problems you have in the US with illegals. I disagree on many enforcement mechanisms in place. they are not working and innocent US citizens are daily caught up in it. If illegals could not get free services and our system for citizenship and foreign Visas was streamlined, you would see a marked drop in illegal immigration activity. The US does have job demands that are filled by migrant workers. However, the migrants would find it hard to remain in the US after their season if they did nt get substantial services on your and my dime. The problem is tricky and more border patrol without smart enforcement is not working. I know. I have crossed the border many times in the last two years. I am considered a criminal until I get beyond 100 miles in.

The principle of non-aggression solves most, but not certainly not, all problems, and your example of property rights, dbhalling, is a perfect counterexample. Point well made. In fact, the Range Wars in late 1800's Wyoming (and perhaps even the Cliven Bundy situation recently in Nevada) are historical examples of the same issue.

In fact, the Industrial Revolution would not have occurred when and where it did without patents. When Japan adopted the US patent system in the 1860s or so, their per capita GDP began to grow for the first time. Property rights in inventions are absolutely necessary for real per capita incomes to grow.

An invention has precise boundaries and most people have a concept of the invention before it is finished. In fact a search is just good engineering, so you don't spend millions recreating the wheel.

Farms do not have precise boundaries in fact. There are no lines drawn on the land. Only with the advent of GPS has there been any precision and in fact there are and have been many more lawsuits about land property rights than ever over patents.

Another media myth. There has been no explosion in patent lawsuits. The number of patent lawsuits have been essentially flat for well over a decade and the recent bump is not an increase in lawsuits, but a change in who can be joined in a single lawsuit.
IN FACT, on a percentage basis the present rate of patent lawsuits is half of what is was in the late 1800s.

This whole discussion points out the importance of evaluating political candidates on an individual basis. It is most distressing, O.A.

Maybe I am biased by the IP issue, but I see it the other way around. In my opinion, libertarians are always trying to short cut philosophy and this leads to the problems. For instance, a big libertarian argument is the Principle of Non-Aggression. Libertarians think this solves all the problems, but without a clear definition of property rights it is impossible to tell who the aggressor is. For instance, if I am a hunter gatherer and I run a across a cow wandering on the plains and shoot it and then you come along and say the cow is yours and point a gun at me, I will not recognize your property rights and you are the aggressor to me. This is a real issue as the American Indians did not understand property right in land.