How do you define force and its initiation? How can a monopoly, which patents, copyrights, and trademarks are, be maintained except by force or by forcefulness through a law or maybe by social pressure where some force is implied? And how can a monopoly be broken without some kind of force? Either one requires some kind of government force through law.
A property right is a sub-category of rights and thus is the freedom of action in a social context. A right does not require law to define it. So IP is not freely acted on but as with property any so called right to it is actually permission by government to use it in some range of action. Suppose I memorized Atlas Shugged, I probably just violated some IP right there by not having permission to Miss Rand's usage rules, I could copy the memory to paper and have a hard copy of Atlas Shugged without having paid a royalty and could give it to my brother without permission. Could I be sued for IP rights violation? As soon as the idea is placed in the form that others can purchase, it can be come personal property of the purchaser. Unless it has a licensing provision for the purchase, as with software and other IP that is not in the public domain, then it is not owned by the purchaser but permitted to be used without ownership. A patent requires the disclosure of the IP behind the invention and thus the freedom of others to know the non-secret. If you want to keep the secret, don't disclose it so that it takes a period time and maybe a large investment to discover it and you have a period of time to recoup your investment in development.

Thats why I brought it up. Today, with all the patent trolls out there who patent everything they can get away with (not intending to ever commercialize it), and who just wait for someone else to have the idea and actually produce it and then are held hostage by the patent troll for royalties

Actually, it has quite a bit to do with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was definitely in favor of patents, but by using her own ethical system, a strong case can be made that treating patents as property conflicts with that same ethical system. The "second independent inventor" being entitled to the product of his/her own mind is a case in point.

Yes, but like you relayed in the article...it was based upon the brayton engine but everyone was using otto by 1911. I remember seeing a documentary about this.
When I designed the "expandable ring band", I also obtained design and utility patents to cover my butt...it's probably the only reason I made anything off it.

Really....did you actually read my post? I gave specific examples. Do you know anything about the history of aviation at all? Just because one thing does not comport with your notion, does not mean it is not true.

"But I will point out thet the Wright Brothers did in fact stifle the aviation business in the United States through their single minded determination to squeeze every penny out of their invention."

There is absolutely no evidence for this position

That is a different question. I would agree with almost all of those statements. Just because property registration system is complex, does not mean that you throw out property rights.

I have answered that over and over and over. The inventor is the first person to invent something - that should be obvious.

the US patent system isnt great, in my opinion. Its expensive, takes a long time, and often stifles innovation rather than encourages it. Its run by patent lawyers who love it, due to its complexity and need for them.

"encourage inventors to find ways around the patents"
I was once asked to make something less efficient because supposedly some patent technicality allows the client to use a certain approach as long as it doesn't work too well. I don't know if this is because the patent was poorly written, the client's attorneys were wrong, or if this is just how patents work.

Has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. You never answer my objection about why only the first inventor has a right to his invention, but no one else has a similar right even though they independently invented the same thing. How can the first one have a "right" to his intellectual property, but no one else can have a right to theirs? Its a legitimate question.

you have never answered my objection to why patents are a "right" to only the first inventor who is awarded the monopoly granted by the government.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

You do not know what property rights are. Why don't you spam another site. Instead of clogging up one about Rand.

I am afraid you are reading my post with the assumption that I am one of the "Anti Patent Crowd" I am not. This is akin to my telling you I went outside and got sunburned and you jump to the conclusion that I am one of the "Anti sun crowd" The only point I was making in my post is that patent owners can be their own worst enemies and giving specific evidence of how it can happen.
It does not serve the process of discourse, to automatically assume that everyone is either for you or against you. If you do so you will miss the nuances of others perspective and experience.

It is not a property right. It simply grants a monopoly to the FIRST person to go through the very expensive government patent system, and who has the money to defend the monopoly.
If a person's intellectual property is sacred, then why is it only the FIRST one to seek government protection that gets the monopoly?. It would seem to me that if it is some sort of innate property right, then anyone who comes up with the idea should have identical rights- which doesnt happen with the patent system here.

I understand your position, being a member of the establishment. We just disagree on this. I am an actual inventor and see the damage that our patent system does. It doesnt protect anything; it just creates 20 year monopolies for the patent trolls.
One thing that I will say that it DOES do, is encourage inventors to find ways around the patents, which isnt that hard a lot of the time and does result in some better ways to do things.

This is hard to answer because of the variables. Assuming the start-up was the technology creator, large companies can and do spend them into the ground trying to defend their patent.

In this case Ford was not the little guy. Selden misinterpreted the scope of his property right - I deal with case like this all the time.

Yes I am absolutely answer you. You ignore the overwhelming evidence and continue spewing the lies of the anti-patent crowd. You are exactly like the Global Warming idiots, just you have a different pet cause.

No it is a property right. It forbids people from doing so without the permission of the property right holder.

No - this is the problem with not having a correct understanding of property rights. The person initiating force is the one who violates someone else's property rights. In this case Selden was incorrect that his property rights extended as far as he claimed/thought.

Nonsense - Patents are why business prosper and Ford had plenty of patents.

Patents are property rights quit with the monopoly propoganda

Did you read the actual patent? I did not but I am pretty sure the claims are pretty specific, I think Selden & Co just tried to expand it.

Not sure one could get away with such a "Generalized" Patent these days...It was my experience during the patenting process that specificity was required along with a working prototype. I patented two inventions and it was tough, the last one especially because there were 1000's of other solutions and ideas that had to be weighted against my idea.
PS. didn't make a whole lot on either one...laughing. I would advise don't do it unless you can afford a patent attorney.

Good analysis. I think a patent forbids everyone else from manufacturing and/or selling the patent device.