Aside from the fact that you’ve taken so much mileage out of so little material, your core assumption that mistakenly believing the US system operates on a first-to-file basis (which is itself a flimsy claim about Rand given the scant evidence available) somehow undermines her position on the nature of intellectual property is a non sequitur. Her position on intellectual property is not based on that belief about the patent system at all, and in fact has nothing to do with any particular system of patents or copyrights. Intellectual property right, in her view, are like all rights – not *granted* by governments, only *guaranteed* by them. The creator and owner of property, whether physical or intellectual, has the right to that property whether anyone respects it or not.

Perhaps you should research her views more carefully before you take such a condescending and triumphant tone toward them?

Also, it’s clear from the rest of the comments that among this crowd “a mindless Randroid drone” should be translated to “anyone who agrees with her and not me, no matter how they actually came to agree with her, because I have no argument to offer”. Are you aware how embarrassing this kind of behavior is for you?

You are one of the few critics of IP here that have actually done what you did; read the act.

Regardless whether you and I may agree, at least you are better informed, and your arguments will reflect that.

Well done.

But note also that the statutory bar kicks in ONLY AFTER ONE YEAR.

35 USC 102(b) – “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.”

All this law does is make a presumption that the first to file between two people in an interference is the inventor, “freeing” the courts from actually looking at evidence and making a determination of who was the first to invent.

OK so you find my posting “rude”. Time to toughen up those wee feelings there sweetness!

I referred to doctrinaire Objectivsts and Randists, who are, in my experience, exactly as described. That they don’t encompass “all” Objectivists should not be much of a surprise. Still, it would appear they are in the greater majority.

I have a lot of sympathy for Rand’s work and ideas, much of which are very useful and quite sound.

Remember this. Ayn Rand, despite the great contributions she made, was not the final word in philosophy or in civilised behaviour and living. Much of the troubles she experienced were self-generated, demonstrating poor judgement and (gasp) a real naughty habit of reliance on rationalisation when it suited (OK, call it excuse-making employed in self-justification).

Rand’s work in this very field of IP was not sound. Her ideas on IP were an important feature of her personal system of thought. She considered the “product of man’s mind” approach fundamental in setting up her derivations of individual rights (property right included). Hence her reliance on this notion for her defense of IP demonstrated a major problem for the entire appraoch she was taking here. Don’t take my word for it, read what she wrote, then contrast that with Prof Herman-Hoppe.

Enjoy!

Sione

PS. Stefan, for the majority of Objectivists locally IP is considered to be real property and so it is ruthlessly, if utterly irrationally and illogically, defended. The local leading wallah/s are quite unable to consider ANYTHING Rand wrote or said or did to be even potentially mistaken. On the other hand, there are a few who think for themselves and some of them are worth discussing such matters with…

Sione

What is your view on Rand’s views on anarchy, the state, and war?

The twisting and turning of doctinaire Obectivists and Randists, attempting to evade Rand’s significant error/s, have been some most visible signals of their willful dishonesty and base lack of ability to apply logic, amusingly entertaining though they may have been. When it comes to arguments pertaining to IP Rand does not offer much real assistance. The bad news is that now the US filing rules are to change, the Randists are effectively being let off the hook. Watch how quickly they’ll pretend there never was a “first to invent” priority. Ha!

Sione

As I tried ot say earlier: the difference is minor. In rare cases, where A and B both independently invent X and boht file for and receive a patent on X, the patnet law says only one person can get a patent on X. So if some clueless hack in the PTO detects that A and B both have a patent on “teh same” invention X (whatever “the same” means), then there may be an “interference” proceeding to deterimine who gets it. Ths was always the law. So it’s either A or B. Under current law it may be A, instead of B. Under new law, sometimes B will get it instead of A. Big deal. The market and patent victims see no difference.

THe main differnce is now that patent lawyers will be afraid to delay when preparing and filing patent aplications since if they file a month later, it may make a difference in rare cases, whereas under the old system it mattered less. So what. Who cares about patent lawyers and their malpractice coverage? I mean really!

Well, what I mean is that if I invent something and I never go to the patent office and decide to offer it as open source, I own the rights to that idea whether I patent it or not.

No you don’t. In a free market, absent patent and copyright, people do not own ideas at all, or “rights to” ideas (whatever that means).

Under a first to file system, an individual could come along, take my open source idea, “develop it independently” and then file for patent protection against my will.

This is vague. What does “develop it independently” mean? If you mean the other guy comes up with an improvement that is itself patentable–sure. But this has NOTHING to do with whether the system is first to file or not. This happens NOW. I suggest you stop trying to make up this complex body of law on your own or speak as an authority on it; you appear to be out of your depth. That is understandble, as this area of law is arcane and complex, but that is the way it is, and people who do not konw what they are talking about ought to realize this.

This fundamentally changes the game, requiring me to patent all of my ideas if I wish to control them and going through the costly and time consuming process of doing so.

this is completely confused.

This is obviously designed to benefit huge corporations that have the kind of resources to file patent applications daily, and it will only lead to the patent office being bogged down in applications.

I am as skeptical of the patent system and corporatism as anyone, but I have no idea where you are getting this from.

It also reduces my ability to refine my ideas until they are very good before filing for protection, meaning that a lot of inferior designs will begin being pushed down the pipeline.

I see no justification for a single thing you are saying.

You seem to think I am a Randian, which is odd given the post of mine above that you are commenting on.

I think your position that this man is rambling and incomprehensible is an indefensible one. He follows a decent structured organization which starts at the broader topic of Rand and IP protectionism and moves down into the direction he thinks we should go as an alternative. I also find your assertion that his speech is incomprehensible to be necessarily false, because I for one comprehended it well and it would seem the others who have posted thus far had zero problems comprehending it.

I find the practice of writing off something you disagree with and belittling it as an insulting and imprudent one, unworthy of rational adults. It is an intellectual laziness of ad hominen attack that would seek to belittle the author instead of giving serious thought to what he has to say. It is the sign of an individual who has a weak and impotent understanding of the subject matter at hand to the point that they cannot even begin to provide a rebuttal to these statements. It is a sign of an unthinking, apelike mind, and I know for a fact with 100% certainty that you are capable of much better than this.

The cult of objectivism would have us defend Rand unthinkingly. Let me tell you, she wasn’t the end all be all demi-goddess philosopher that many make her out to be. She borrowed extensively from Nietzsche, the classical liberals, the rationalists and the egoists while only attributing her thoughts to Aristotle, and she would declare a thing to be true without argument or defense and then move on as if her speaking it alone were enough to justify the basis for its truth. Her “epistemology,” while I think it is true, is presented in philosophical fallacy. She literally appealed to her own authority while making those arguments, and while I appreciate her gusto, this practice does not make her a good or skilled philosopher.

The difference between Rand and Nietzsche is this: Nietzsche understood the subtlety and purpose of philosophy, Rand did not. Nietzsche understood that without a rationally defensible objective morality, humanity was lost, and in his lamentation for the loss of morality, he created Nihilism truth (for if philosophy is failed, then how can you distinguish between truth and falsehood and how can you generate new truisms?), I must assert that our work is not done.

We still need a secular humanism with a rational objective epistemology and a rational objective morality. Rand showed us the back of the book, now we need to actually think and engineer a way for us to arrive there in a defensible way. Only then will we be able to create a mass market philosophy which can have the kind of impact that Rand’s impotent brand failed to have.