Software is just a way of wiring an electronic circuit. So you would have to be against all patents on electronic circuits. But so far you have proven that you are impervious to logic, so I doubt you will understand this You have a religious believe based on a personal bias.

Hear hear

No it would not. Inventions are hierarchical and you could not invent all the steps.

thank you

This is an Ayn Rand site. Those who agree with Ayn Rand are not "cultists".

Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy, not whatever Will Thomas or Cato say it is. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

Objectivism cannot possibly be a part or a subclass of something (libertarianism) that is both narrower in scope and contradictory. Those who think otherwise don't understand what Objectivism is and what philosophy is, and have no concern for either the internal contradictions of the libertarian movement or its contradictions with Objectivism. Ayn Rand's philosophy is much much, more than politics and is the basis for her politics.

Religious and anti-philosophical libertarians contradict Objectivism both in policies promoted and in the intellectual basis for the promotions. They took Ayn Rand's principle of non-initiation of force as a primary and a floating abstraction, misusing it from anarchism to abdication of foreign policy to anti-abortion.

This is what happens when the defense of capitalism is divorced from its philosophical base. That some libertarians say they like Ayn Rand or use her terminology does not make the hodge podge compatible with Objectivism. Libertarianism is not "part of the Objectivist politics" and Objectivism is not "a libertarian philosophy" as Will Thomas' mangled account put it.

Here is some of what Ayn Rand said about libertarianism at the time:

Libertarian Party "leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas..." [Ford Hall Forum 1974]

"I've read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandled -- that is, the teeth pulled out of them -- with no credit given. I didn't know whether to be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable." [Leonard Peikoff's "Objective Communication", Lecture 1 question period, 1980]

"... [T]hey plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They're lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program." [Ford Hall Forum 1981]

"Please don't tell me they're pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That's how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others..." [Ford Hall Forum 1981]

For the questions and the full answers for these and more questions on libertarianism see Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, ed by Robert Mayhew.

welcome aboard...I've been waiting for you.

Not from me. Not a single one. Can you say the same to me?

the house has already dropped on you. and I am leaving not cleaning the site up

this site is falling apart

MR SHIPLEY SAYS WE SHOULD HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR INVENTIONS. REALLY.

I question whether software algorithms count as inventions and whether the current practices doesn't allow someone to claim ownership of the obvious. But software patents are a subset of inventions.

Frustrating as shit isn't it? :( Your mission is a difficult one.

all of the time, effort, patient citing, -have you ever had this many negative points LS? what site am I on that IO hold the most points, the most -well fuck it

I think I'm going to go with....Nnnnooooo.

Yep.

Present company excepted, let me know when you find such a race.

I am outraged that on an Objectivist site my Objectivist husband enjoys negative points from Libertarians. Good plan. Please enjoy the site. Take it over. Up is fucking down around here. Bye

you appear to be confusing patents and copyrights. They are completely different.

"Most people are either conservative or liberal. "
I think most people are some variety of less-gov't-advocates, but they don't know it. The liberal vs conservative thing gets attention, like bright red packaging or sexual images. It doesn't mean people want that. I am hopeful that someone like Rand Paul will be able to sell of slowing reducing the cost and intrusiveness of gov't.

Right by justice who do not understand the technology or the law. The reality is that patent are the most expensive, most examined property right in the world.

Not because of IP laws -- nobody had them then. A large empire that upheld property rights and free trade certainly enabled the Industrial Revolution to take place, but that did not depend on IP law.

Patents are overturned for prior art all the time. That isn't simultaneous invention, that is the patent-applicant (and the PTO) failing to perform due diligence before the patent is granted, and is a good reason to reduce the duration of patents, or better yet, to place on the plaintiff in an infringement case the burden of proving the patent was properly issued and really does cover the defendant's allegedly infringing act.

"simultaneous invention" is a red herring, no one argues that. The big problem with IP law as it stands is that it excessively upholds (1) un-called-for control-freakism by the Big 8 media companies and (2) parents so overbroad and/or vague that they appear to cover all kinds of obvious ideas, causing infringement defendants to get unjustly stuck with the burden of proving these problems exist.

A more reasonable copyright regime, in my view, would have a copyright owner's complete control of all uses of his work end in about 3-5 years, to be followed by a longer period (maybe even 100 years) where he is entitled to a standard fee (similar to the existing "mechanical licensing" on recorded music) but cannot veto any use of the work. This would be more faithful to the purpose of IP as stated in the Constitution, and would be better balanced with freedom of expression. For patents we don't need much change in existing law, except to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff unless and until the PTO becomes competent at discovering prior art before it issues a patent.

The NAP is a good enough foundation. A building doesn't need to be anchored all the way to the center of the earth to have a firm foundation.