It is indeed a fine line between jurisdiction and ownership when it comes to the question of government. While there are bonafide reasons for and provision for government ownership (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 17), what we are talking about here is the situation when the federal government did acquire land ownership or jurisdiction with the philosophy of holding it "in trust" until it could be "disposed" of to the people or the States. And we know how that goes - there was even a Vermont congressman that argued in the 1830's, that such assets held in trust is a recipe for corruption.

And here we are. Even the inventory of federal jurisdictions performed by the GAO that was commissioned by Eisenhower in 1956 (declassified in 1963) shows that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over only about 1% of the State of Nevada. Gee, forts, stockyards, post office blocks, etc. They actually acknowledge that the federal "ownership" of the 87% of Nevada is as a proprietary owner within the State of Nevada, and, as such, are subject to the laws of the State like any other property owner.

So, it is within my lifetime, this power structure has morphed from that which was truly meant to benefit the citizenry through privatization of land, mineral, grazing, and all other assorted resources, to one of nationalized control by the central government with access to these resources essentially denied to the citizenry. Statist mentality indeed!

The Louisiana Purchase from a foreign government was for jurisdiction, not government 'ownership' and not owning land in a state, at a time when the Federal government only held control of the land to dispense it to settlers and much of the territory was not yet populated enough to become a state. The problem was not the Louisiana Purchase, but the statist mentality that followed it. That is what happened to Nevada and the other western states.

Interesting question, whether foreign governments should be allowed to own land in an Objectivist country. Assuming such a country exists, say, the future U.S., and all land is in private hands except the District of Columbia (seat of the government), we must first acknowledge and reconcile how such ownership came to be in the first place. In pre-history, early humans were squatters; no language, no contracts, just control by occupation and defense (or conquest) against people in other territories. The idea of parceling everything out for individual ownership is post-feudal. Historically dispossessed populations would have to make peace about such a status quo.

Fast forward to where conquest, expropriation, and settlements have stabilized land into private hands, then any change in ownership will be by individual consent. Should a private individual be willing to sell the family homestead to a foreign government rather than to a foreign individual, whether for profit or through ideological persuasion, the individual of course is subject to the jurisdiction of the constitutional government in matters of foreign relations and foreign trade. Diplomacy is not in private hands. Provided that nothing about that deal infringes on the rights of anyone else, there is no problem unless we want to have paranoia be the basic principle of human interactions.

On the other hand, it would be more profitable for a landowner to lease land and buildings to a foreign country to use for embassies and consulates. There is no reason to sell it outright.

Note the inherent contradiction in the article. It first complains that IP is not being protected and then it complains when it is being protected. I guess this is fine because in one case it is foreigners stealing our technology and in the second case it is foreigners enforcing their IP rights.

I am in agreement with most here. No, for foreign governments; the only exception being embassies.
Yes to Corporations and individuals.

I'll ask db to respond more fully on the article. and in no way do I support China's blatant theft of technology and design. But the article begins with this statement:
"in the private sector a patent troll acquires vague and outdated patents—not for the purpose of producing an invention or a technology—but as grounds to sue an inventor or company. The troll will claim that a new widget bears some relation to its patent and therefore the troll should be paid a license fee. If target does not willingly pay the tribute, the troll drags them into court. Attorney fees in patent litigation often exceed $1 million dollars for a defendant. Hence, there is much incentive to settle with the troll."

I vehemently disagree with this premise. First of all, there is no such thing as an "out-dated patent." If it were out-dated, then either a) no one would be infringing it to produce their product or b) it would have been expired, therefore no one could sue for infringement against it. As well, in an infringement suit, you cannot force a party to license your technology. You can enforce your patent right to keep a party from using your patented technology in your product. Finally, there is no such thing as a "vague" patent. This is the phrase of someone who knows nothing about patents. It is relatively easy for any lay person to do a simple search and find patents which may be similar to the technology they have developed. IF it's in the ballpark, it makes good business sense to have an attorney give you an in-depth opinion. 1. you don't want to get sued and 2. why would you want to copy what someone else is already doing? 3. approaching the owner of a patent up your tech alley to possibly license their technology is how inventors get paid. Inventing is a profession.
Litigating as a strategy. It can be part of monetizing one's intellectual property portfolio. One would prefer a licensing arrangement as it is an income stream. However, if infringing companies refuse to care they are infringing, they have to pay a price for their theft. It's how business works. If you're starting or investing in a business, know the IP in your space. IT's part of business, like keeping books or knowing your competition. Buying up US IP and vigorously prosecuting it in the US is more a function of capitalism than espionage. It shows that China "gets" we have stronger enforcement in the US relative to other countries in the world, including China. We have Chinese clients who get patents in the US even though they're making their product in China. They know patent law is weak in China.
What I find troubling is a strategy by foreign companies to contest issued patents. Let's say you have a patent. Your foreign competitor can use the US patent system to keep you in court over the validity of your already issued and monetized property! This is new since 2011 and part of patent "reform" and "harmonizing" with the international community. It's like saying let's take our Constitution and "harmonize" it with Russia's.

Hear hear

Completely agreed.

This isn't exactly "spreading tech":

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/arti...

Damn! I have maintained, on the issue of 'who owns the land,' the concept that the 'ownership' of any land, territory or whatever is based upon the ability to defend it from anyone else who wants to take it from the current 'owners.'

Land titles, ownership rights, property rights, and all that ancillary stuff is a subset of a legal framework built on the 'ownership' of the entire 'country' by its citizens and their ability to hold on to it.

So, if there is to be an "Objectivist Country," how did it come into being? How did its citizen/owners acquire the territory and how do they/can they protect themselves from anyone wanting to 'take it from them'?

I think those might be questions quite apropos to discussions of 'foreign ownership of the land' per se... What does 'ownership' mean in situations like that?!

Just askin', as usual... :)

"The government of Dictatorland then compels the new patent owner to refuse to license its patents to any company in Freedomland, as part of Dictatorland’s campaign of economic warfare. "
Isn't it the same thing if the gov't of Dictator land purchases any means of production from a citizen of Freedomland. The citizen has the money, and Dictatorland has a goose that lays golden eggs. Money is medium of exchange, not a store of value, so the Freedomland citizen will soon invest that wealth into projects that have a chance of making more geese that lay golden eggs. Dictatorland will use the profits from their property just as they would any investment.
I don't see why it's a special case if the means of production (investment, goose, or whatever we're calling it) happens to be IP.

So Dictatorland is spending money on inventions they have no intention of monetizing. Then people will invent around these and invent on top these and then they will have to buy the next inventions.. There has never been an invention in the history of the world that cannot be designed around.

This is worse than trying to buy up all the land in a country, because there is a limited amount of land, but an unlimited number of inventions.

what you are ignoring is the capitalist initiative. it is pervasive. it starts as a govt initiative but it says so much to those citizens who are awake. Stealing? not so much. but buying...ah, tehy are engaging in capitalistic behavior. everyone watches...soaks in...3 decades later...:)If you purchase the patent-there is no infringement. the inventor(s) are funded(encouraged) to create teh next thing...all is right with the world...:)

This is indeed a fascinating question. It leads me to wonder what an Objectivist based constitution for a nation of sovereign States would look like. I like to think that our Constitution was derived in the most rational era possible. Remember the Age of Reason? That which has been replaced by our current Age of Cognitive Dissonance.

In our Constitution, the ability of the federal government to own land within a State as property is specifically limited and enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. The Article IV Property clause then supports this enumeration.

And then along came the opportunity to acquire additional land in the interest of the nation with the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson fretted that there was no specific enumeration empowering the federal government to do this, so the Property Clause was extended - using the pre-constitutional precedent of the Northwest Ordinance to apply to Territories.

Ah, but what happens to those unallocated public lands when a Territory is admitted into the Union? Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 says no, no, feds you can't keep those unallocated lands. They go to the State where it is in the interest and solvency of the State to privatize said lands to private ownership. Thereby, benefiting the individual citizens.

But, something happened along the way and using my home State of Nevada as an egregious example, 87% of the land has stayed in federal “ownership”. And by way of FLPMA 1976, now in perpetuity. Permanent federal ownership we are told. Not good. The various means by which privatization can be gained is either an embattled recognition of grandfathered rights of the split estate on these lands, or remnant vestiges of public lands “disposal” laws such as the 1872 Mining Law. While that law still recognizes private mineral rights ownership, the ability to patent the surface ownership was eviscerated in 1992. No more private land to add to the local County tax rolls.

So, if ownership by our own government, now representing nationalization of the worst kind, is a bad idea, what happens when foreign entities attempt to enter into mineral rights through the Mining Law or by purchase of existing private ownership of land and rights? If such foreign entities are from national origins that do not recognize the unalienable rights of the individual and as such are fascist in nature – where State owned corporations are merely government fronts – we have foreign governments buying up property out of individual ownership. We have foreign government entities buying our country piece by piece.

So, it would seem to make sense that an Objectivist based government would differentiate foreign individuals, foreign private corporations, and collectivist State owned entities when they enter this country with eye of purchase.

no, and there should be strong limits on ALL foreign
ownership, say, of the U.S. ... and I mean
land ...... -- j

Okay, but what should be the policy of an Objectivist country in an otherwise non-Objectivist world?

Here’s a hypothetical: A corporation in Dictatorland, using massive government subsidies, buys valuable patents from a corporation in Freedomland. The government of Dictatorland then compels the new patent owner to refuse to license its patents to any company in Freedomland, as part of Dictatorland’s campaign of economic warfare. The corporation in Dictatorland is also compelled by its government to aggressively pursue litigation in Freedomland’s court system against any real or perceived infringement of its newly purchased patents. How should Freedomland’s courts rule, and what effect will their rulings have on innovation?

The libs and the looters will go crazy...but here it is....CORPRORATIONS ARE PEOPLE TOO!!!!

Foreign GOVERNMENT?
No. Pretty straight forward.
The land they control is over there. Not here.

Individuals (including corporations) of course.
Why not? We do.

I would think the people of the nation, not necessarily this nation, Objectivism should be world wide, and the control is exemplified as in France or Japan, by a refusal to handle the nations products, with customs controls that are enforced by the peoples purse strings.

Ownership of land can affect politics. So, yes, it is important. But so is ownership of a bank or a major industry, especially one that affects mass media. Perhaps the fundamental qustion should be addressed.

Yes, I was once a corporation, then I sold my corporation, but I didn't sell me.

To me a corporation is just a person or group of persons that finance some goal usually in the form of a business. They pool their money and resources to accomplish something they could not accomplish on their own. It's mostly the governments intervention and regulation that makes it tough. Corporations are good, without them we'd have a lot less stuff, period.

The majority of negative news and comments today on corporations are for political purposes, mostly to take our minds off the real issues (Benghazi, IRS, NSA, F&F, Jobs, etc.).

Who would determine if they are a threat or not, Obama's administration?

Nah, I'm too old, but some of you youngsters might consider it.

Land is the one commodity that anyone has that can't go away. Everything else is just temporary.

Wow, good point. Selling to a government would be knowingly receiving stolen property.