In an Objectivist world there would only be a patent that covered you worldwide. It doesn 't matter how they are acquired if they are infringed entity should be able to enforce their rights. The real trouble with China has been theft. So if they are willing to buy portfolios that 's great. That 's the best way to to spread tech throughout the world.

Are we making a distiction between property meaning land or anything material? All the comments so far seem to indicate land, but is there a fundamental difference?

This issue is very complex. Companies based in China are purchasing U.S. patents and filing new U.S. patent applications at a significant rate, and initiating patent infringement lawsuits in U.S. courts.

http://www.generalpatent.com/chinese-com...

The growing Chinese patent portfolio is made possible, in part, by government subsidies to its businesses:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/busine...

How would an Objectivist government, whose primary mission is to protect the rights of its citizens, deal with this state of affairs?

First ask if you really want to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese. Must be very time consuming when you could be doing something else.

I would think yes, provided they are not a military threat, where the property could be used as a 'Trojan Horse'.

Not that I disagree with the possible problems of government buying up private property, but in
practical terms -

How would you tell whether or not an individual
buying the property is not a government or corporate agent? The individual may have any number of unknown agreements, contracts, and relationships.

This is a fascinating question. It really defines the line between a constitutionally-limited country's right to be sovereign, including establishment of reasonable national security measures such as border control, immigration policy, spread of infectious diseases, etc. vs. the rights of individuals to pursue what is in their economic (or otherwise) best interests.

To be properly Objectivist, the citizens should not allow their own country to own property, let alone foreign governments (with the reasonable exception of embassies and consulates perhaps).

As for foreign individuals and corporations, ownership of Objectivist property should be subject to adherence to the Objectivist code.

Governments cannot have property rights because their property is acquired by theft. That is a contradiction, and contradictions do not exist. It is not possible to define property rights in a way in which this could work. How do property right work when theft is also allowed?

We already have that in the Sovereign Indian Lands.

Or to spy. But I am uncomfortable with limiting of property rights in this case. In the US, the govt can also keep you from selling your patent if they deem it a security risk. We limit property rights conveniently in the name of safety.

Governments? No.

Corporations and individuals? Yes.

The purpose of owning land to an individual or corporation is for capital - a place on which to invest one's time and money. Outside of an embassy or consulate (where a government is investing in a place to establish foreign relations), what capitalistic reason does a government have for owning land? None I can think of.

I would not allow it. What could they possibly use it for, except as a military base?

Yes Khailing..I agree...why not corporations.....I think we are seeing a rather nasty strain of the looter mentality when we see this anti-Corporate mentality. Who do you think owns corporations??? A large proportion are Little old lady's who own retirement mutual funds. Also others but they are all people who have put their capitol at risk and created jobs....yes the men and women of the minds...that is who corporations are! Why the hell should they be restricted in what they can buy? All this anti corporate attitude is nothing more than a looter mentality trained in to the American psyche in government schools so that the US government can stir up the mob to loot corporations which quite frankly is where the money is.

why not corporations?

From an objectivist standpoint there seems to me to be no reason to restrict anyone who is legally in a country from spending his money on whatever he wants, this would apply to corporations and nations as well. As long as you have a willing seller, no coercion and a willing buyer, objectivism would see no obstacle.

No and I would have to say the same for corporations.

Why?

NOOOO

I say no & I'm with KH. Our government should not own only a very limited amount of it.

should governments be able to own property except in limited circumstances?

NO.