Nowhere did I call a property right a monopoly. Do not conflate a right with a government granted monopoly. One must justify a monopoly by other than calling it a right, it isn't, it is a permission with a gun behind it. A property right is not a monopoly granted to the property holder by the government. The right is to act to keep the property that one has gained and not to keep others from copying your property from property that you do not own. A patent gives the government permission to force someone to not use their property in some way that might produce profit. A property right defines the freedom of the use and disposal of the property and not on how others may use their property, while a patent defines what others may not use their property for with respect to the patented property.

The fact that you call a property right a monopoly shows that you are not for reason, natural rights, capitalism

Does not the Constitution give the purpose for patents as: "to promote the progress of science and useful arts"? Nowhere does it imply a coercive monopoly to protect the livelihood of inventors and as with copyrights the lives of their heirs as with Rand believing that it should extend for 70 years after her death. Monopolies granted by government are bad because they imply the initiation of force in commerce. It is a crap shoot in some cases where second inventor applies a little late even though his development cost were similar. So if there is a reason for a patent to help recoup the development expense it is a matter timely luck.
But the framers of the Constitution were more interested in knowledge being disseminated to the populous than anything about the profit of inventors.

It reveals you are anti-reason, anti-property rights, anti-natural rights.

The title of the article (and the discussion) is “What Your Position on Patents Reveals About You”. I’m discussing my position on patents, and what it reveals about me is that I have objections to them on natural rights grounds, not Austrian ones. And I’m doing it without directing personal insults at anyone.

Wrong. https://hallingblog.com/2010/03/07/%E...

You are getting mark downs because you are not honest. The case is overwhelming that patents spur technology and the economy as the article showed. The fact that you want some side discussion shows you are not honest.

I agree with you that it is difficult or impossible to prove that someone had an idea independently. This does not, however, affect the moral rights of the second inventor who actually did come up with the idea independently. If we are going to give the government the duty to enforce the rights of the first inventor we allow it to trample on the rights of the second. It is a pragmatic, not a moral, decision.

I didn't think it was you doing the markdowns. On controversial topics they come with the territory.

I do agree that the originator of a discovery, idea or invention should be given acknowledgement for coming up with it first.

In a Utopian world you would be right but in the real world history has proven me right time and again.

This is why Alexander Graham Bell goes down in history as the inventor of the Telephone and Elijah Grey goes down as a minor foot note.

As to marking up or down. I haven't done any of either. Until this post here I have been posting from my phone.

Until I get a reply, I guess I'll have to settle for a markdown. :-)

I obviously accept my premise and do not accept yours. I also deny that what you have shown holds water.

I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Good night. I am going to bed.

You have no evidence of this assertion, and I have plenty of evidence that it is incorrect. If a mind produces an idea or an invention, it is necessarily the case that this idea or invention is a product of that specific mind. To say otherwise is to deny that two people can come up independently with the same idea.

Only if one accepts your premise that the original inventor has the right to forbid subsequent inventors from manufacturing or marketing their products. I have shown why this is not the case.

It is the product of the ORIGINAL inventors mind. If he is not the ORIGINAL he is a copy and if he sells it a Thief.

It impinges on the rights of the ORIGINAL inventor.

Only if you hold the position that a product created by his own mental effort is not the product of his own mind. And that is true only if an idea can only ever be the "product" of a single person's independent thinking. Which is not the case.

How does selling the product of his own mind to others impinge on their rights?

No it is very relevant. As when he attempts to market the idea he is then stealing from the originator.

But if he is selling it to others that right impengines on the rights of others and that may limit what he can do,

Either the second inventor has the right to use his invention or he doesn't. Whether the exercise of this right has little effect is irrelevant.

Man has a right to the product of his own mind. This right is not contingent upon proving it to others.

Only if the second or subsequent inventor could prove that they honestly had the idea independently. Which they cannot do. Therefore the original inventor deserves protection.

No there is no way to prove that the second inventor didn't copy and the original deserves protection.

I am all for less government but this is a perfect example of what a government should do in protection of its people.

As to your issue with my acceptance of a person making something for personal use. It really comes down to the person making a one off item has so little effect on the person holding the patent as to be not worth the bother.

As it shouldn't. Man has a right to the product of his own mind. This right is not contingent upon whether someone previously had the same idea or came up with the same invention.