Actually abandonment is a misnomer if you look at it from a pure property standpoint. Just because they chose to do nothing with it does not mean they have given up on it. If its in an area with depressed values then they could be biding their time till value rises then sell. As for no heirs then it should revert to the city or county that is the most local in terms of non state (literal) entities for their use but notice must be given to allow for non discovered persons that might have a claim to make themselves known. All other cases the property doss not change hands. Even in a case of no property taxes paid it would not change hsnds as a tax on property simply for existing that when unpaid leads to a seizure is saying that you only own it while you pay our extortion which is akin to organized crime protection rackets.

It shouldn't. It's not yours and it's certainly not the State's. Let entropy claim it.

In most states, these various forms of "unclaimed property" are turned over to the state, after a certain period of time, and the state maintains a list of who the former owner was. If the former owner or his/her heirs come along and can prove their ownership rights, the state will return the money (or whatever) to them. If no one claims it, the state will keep it forever. In some states, they have state employees whose job it is to try to find these people and return the money to them. They will also publish information on these things by way of newspaper legal ads, big computer printed lists (which can be several inches thick) which they will set up at state fairs, etc. This is also now done on the internet - see www.missingmoney.com - who knows, they might have something of yours! But to me, all of this is a form of respecting the property rights of the legal owners.

Yeah, like sea salvage.

When she finds her biological parents, can she claim two sets of inheritances?

We can go back and forth on this forever, and it does not make much difference because neither one of us gets to determine the rules for everyone else.

What I read here is a difference between us in mind-sets or world-views. I do not see either of us persuading the other.

Okay, but adopted relatives, like genetic ones, can be discovered during a search for potential heirs.

Honestly, I don't know what such laws are, other than what would be spelled out in an employment contract.

My sister was adopted.

AFAIK, Ayn Rand took no actions against the LP. As she pointed out, objectively, she had no way to prevent them from knowing what they knew. They could not reprint Atlas, of course, but they could use the ideas any way they wished.

Non-disclosure and non-compete agreements are typically enforceable in court. Unfortunately Atlas Shrugged did not address this issue or the related patent issue, except to make it clear that John Galt did not have any intellectual property rights to the motor he invented at the time he quit the company.

Are there any laws around trade secrets? I thought that would be a part of an employment contract.

I think that patent vs. trade secret is actually a major point in this discussion.

Sure? no. But from what I remember, the motor company went bankrupt. So maintaining any patents would be done by those administering the assets (not mentioned in the book I think). You are right, there would be a time that they would let patents lapse, just because there was nobody left smart enough to make use of the ideas.

The question of patent vs. trade secret is an important one. Once one abandons a patent, I think that someone else pursuing intellectual property in that area is easier to accept ethically. Trade secrets on the other hand are not quite as clear. Good point. +1

The motor was a prototype and more likely in the "trade secret" category rather than the "patent" category. The Starnes heirs showed no interest in it, but they nevertheless owned it. So the question still is, at what point did John Galt acquire the right to build, improve on and use an invention that he had originally developed as a "work for hire"?

Are you sure? If the Starnes heirs abandon their company and don't sell it to anyone, does that mean that no one can ever again build a product (or company) based on that abandoned technology? I think in that case that you are incorrect. You have to pay government patent offices a yearly fee to maintain your patent. If you abandon it, ...

The Twentieth Century Motor Company ceased to exist, AND the Starnes heirs neither wanted to, nor knew how to, take advantage of the intellectual property that Galt created in the form of the motor. This question is an important one and is one I am going to start a new discussion on:

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

I saw that, I believe, in the Ayn Rand Letter. She wrote, "I would sooner destroy all existing copies of my work than permit it."

This is the first I have heard of Ayn Rand's objection to the Fair Use Doctrine. Is there a link?

Hold on. Intellectual property rights are one of the cardinal principles of Objectivist theory and practice. Recall that Rand objected strongly to the Fair Use Doctrine in the 1973 Copyright Act. She would likely be the first to advocate for those "shirttail relatives."

How is "bloodline" non-objective? Either a person has a specific genetic relationship to another person or he doesn't.

If one does not want someone to use its (if you prefer sexism or gender reference, his/her ) idea, do not disclose it in speech or writing.

Do you know whether Rand actually tried to stop the Libertarian Party from using the non-agression principle because she thought of it and wrote it somewhere and copyrighted it and the party did not get permission to use her property ? I would suspect that by writing it somewhere it became freely usable for any mind to use it philosophically as in the platform for the Libertarian party?

So, as I read your posts on this and related topics, a person is not property but is a bundle of severable rights in personhood. That bundle must also change and grow and diminish as the person goes from embryonic near-nothingness to senility. A newborn cannot drive a car; and you can get the court to take away Grandpa's license.

All of that is arbitrary and arguable specifically because, as Irshultis pointed out, you are ignoring the object (person, land, musical composition, etc.) in which these rights are considered.

By your logic, selling my rights to a musical composition is not essentially different from selling myself into slavery, only in degree, not kind. Moreover, your argument - supportable, perhaps from Roman Law - is that a slave still has some rights. I think that most people here would disagree with that.

I reject "bloodline" entirely, as being non-objective. Different cultures have different ways to define who is related to whom and how closely. And I not talking about New Guinea or New Caledonia, but right here in our own country. It is non-objective, based in mystical and mythical traditions. Your call for "unlimited tacing" has too many problems. That is why I pointed to auctions, and suggested at least a lottery.

At the American Numismatic Association, they went through some minor pain when they wanted to put all 125+ years of The Numismatist online as a benefit to membership. Shirttail relatives of dead authors demanded copyright royalties for the re-publication of the work. It was nonsense.

Everything is starts with the property rights in one self