Changing the states of the transistors does not "rewire the circuits". You have no business accusing anyone of "monumental ignorance" for rejecting it.

it's worse. Advocating for theft is trying to morally justify it which is worse in the long run. I am tired of mincing around anarchists and pretending I am having an intellectual discussion with a moving target. The goal is to obscure, divert, antagonize and divide ultimately. It is intellectually dishonest and not objective to promote abolishing of property rights. Your belief in God does not threaten me. Those advocating for abolishment of property rights threatens everyone. I will not ignore those attempts on this site. I will point them out for who they are and what they are advocating for.

3)".. but don't believe that the current system does so rationally or justly..." You had me at believe. ;) You are working off of examples with false information and an emotional response. give me hundreds of examples where the system is "broken" and I will look at them. We deal with the patent system daily. Thousands of patents are reviewed by db. He does not say there is never any patents which should not have made it, but they are very few. the objective proof those nations with strong enforcement of intellectual property rights flourishing compared to nations with less enforcement is objective-yet you ignore that...conveniently?
2) Advocating for theft is a form of theft. They are just a more careful criminal who wants less risk for themselves at great harm to others who are productive.
1) addressed in 2. I have been basically gone from the gulch for 10 days while travelling. my posts are lit up with anarcho bullshit all of a sudden. where was your vigilence? oh, you were supporting them on my patent post. check out my walmart post.

he is advocating theft. copyright vs patent: there is no no logical basis for protecting the works of artists and not protecting the works of inventors.
cbj thinks patents should be completely abolished. If the intent is NOT to steal, then why the desire to destroy a property right based on natural rights? How is that different from removing your right to bear arms? It clearly shows that you advocate picking and choosing which property rights people can have. I can argue all day with socialists on this point. Frustrating I have to do it on this site

That is pretty much the way that it worked out in that case.

yes. You are a thief. You want to justify your theft of others work. How are you better than a mobster? How are you better than Marx? Your philosophy would protect those who steal AS III and distribute it without paying the creators. You are why I left the US.

Um . . . so the passage of a "reform" from "first to invent" to "first to file" is the fault of those of us who think patents should be abolished totally? Please explain.

actually, since 2011 you are correct. The anti-patent sentiment such as your views, have had influence. The patent reform (regress) bill was passed and is now law. so the first to file is now the "new" definition of inventor. Before all that bad publicity based on erroneous information and publicity was the case an inventor was the first to invent. which is the definition of inventor. FIRST. but those with anti-patent sentiment like yourself had real world affect. Imagine the glee of a big company who has teams of patent attorneys filing everyday. Thank you for supporting them for patent reform. In the past, even if a patent was granted, an inventor could prove they were the first and the patent would be invalidated. Now, not so much. Again, my clients thank you for your anti-patent stances and so do the big boys.

when you file a PCT, it includes the UK. It includes the US. It will turn on priority date of filing, but also, when was it first out there. remember, scientists publishing a paper that pre-dates your filing of an invention if its the same, your application will have to deal with that prior art. In most of the world, it is "absolute novelty" which means you can't publish before you file your patent application in any country that has absolute novelty. Which is most countries. The US had a system for dealing with "simultaneous invention." It was rearely used, and when it was used, almost always, individuals invented similar but not exactly the same. So tehy both ended up with different claims or what were called "counts." I would put my money on this is the case here as well, but that is just based on other similar claims we have heard before and when db looked into it, well, usually both sets of inventors had patentable areas. It was not the case there was one winner and one loser.

yes

In some fields, it actually is that close of a race. In the field of induced pluripotent stem cells, a group from Japan and a group from the UK independently came up with strategies to make adult stem cells act like they were back in the womb. I think this is the most importnat invention of the 21st century. They published within the same MONTH, and their work was being reviewed concurrently by different patent agencies. The UK group got a patent only in the UK. The Japanese group got the "world" PCT patent.

I have read Ayn Rand’s article on patents and copyrights, and on the issue of patents I think she misapplied her own philosophy. Elsewhere, in The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand says, “Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.”

Clearly in Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand has established that Rearden Metal is a product of Hank Rearden’s effort. This holds true whether or not anyone else has invented the same or a similar thing, and whether or not Rearden is the first person to arrive at the Patent Office. This being the case, Rearden has the moral right to produce and market Rearden Metal.

I assume from your statement that Rearden Metal is no longer a product of Hank Rearden's mind if someone with a similar invention beats him to the patent office by a few minutes.

And that henceforth he has no right to manufacture Rearden Metal without first obtaining permission from the patent holder.

Thanks KH. I was attempting to demonstrate that land property rights can have restrictions placed on them by the zoning boards. The government should not have that authority when it comes to intellectual property. Their only responsibility should be setting the rules by which such IP is legally recorded and then provide the mechanism for adjudication if there are disagreements. Like rules for driving on public roads, so that we are all using a knowable and common system with independent and free movement.
Just because someone likes your car, it does not give them the tight to steal it.
Cheers

First has nothing to do with independent - unless the original inventor hid their work. The reality is that true, near simultaneous invention almost never happens.

It's called logic. I vote down people who are being intellectually dishonest or are so ignorant of the issues as to appear so. That is you blarman.

I vote down people who are being intellectually dishonest or are so ignorant of the issues as to appear so. That is you blarman.

I vote down people who are being intellectually dishonest or are so ignorant of the issues as to appear so. That is you blarman.

who has time to go around and around on logically proven concepts. A right in a patent does not fit even one definition of a monopoly. To hold they do is an emotional response not objective and individuals have a right to get heated when reason is applied. Again, go to any Objectivist website and read the definitions of property rights-I have posted Rand's definitions on all property rights and on intellectual property rights including discussion regarding monopolies. You have not provided one shred of evidence to counter act any of the copious definitions, facts, examples, that have been posted here. You do not like patents. I get that. You support anarchy to deny property rights. Logically see your inherent contradictions and re-check your premises.