Like your Austrian friends you just throw shit at the wall and see if it sticks. You don't believe anyone invents anything, then you argue independent invention. You position is faith based - reason and facts have no effect on you.. Not surprising, like your Austrian friends your ideas come from David Hume.

E, do you have a reference? This is a William Thomas piece.

I personally think that David Kelley's analysis is right on target.

Can you point to me calling you evil? I have not and will not. Since you toss around terms like SCUM I lost my the temper the first time I got called a string of epithets and said you were self interested.

Is it your statement that patents are never overturned for prior art? If they are does that mean there was theft or independent invention?

This is not a rhetorical question. You must have an opinion on a situation that happens in your profession?

I notice you wound up with a -1 and I wound up with a 0. I will state that I have NEVER down counted one of your or your wife's posts. I would never do that in an argument I was personally in.

Right, but it is okay to say that people are evil because of their profession. Yes I have you don't care about fact. All you present is conjectures - no facts. NO amount of evidence will convince you. You have a religious faith in your position. Really you are just trying to justify that it is okay to steal if you have purposeful ignorance.

Well, calling me a SCUM certainly is mean.

Anyway, you have not shown that independent invention does not occur. You have stated it, that's different than showing it. As you well know, demonstrating prior art is cause for invalidating a patent -- and one that happens often.

Does that mean that the person filing the patent stole the original idea or that he independently invented it and thought he was the first creator.

I admit there are practical issues but I am specifically interested in the morality of essentially stealing the independent creative work of a second person by declaring that since you thought of it and filed some forms he is not entitled to the fruits of his labor.

Of course the frequency of this problem is directly related to the broadness of patents as well as the willingness of the patent office to grant patents on relatively obvious inventions.

I care about facts, but claims are not facts. Claims are simply claims.

How has it been shown that multiple invention does not occur? History is littered with instances of multiple invention and discovery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

Jan

you have been mean. We represent countless individual inventors who just want their ideas protected. why are we the bad guy? protecting your invention is a good thing. You have no idea what Dale does for his clients. HOw much counseling for free, how much inventing he does with them for free. This is our philosophy-not just a living. we live our philosophy :) I get mad when we are impugned. anyone who thought for themselves would

Got to be honest, no one has answered, perhaps except very slightly by dbhalling what exactly is something objectivism follows that the broader libertarianism does not also encompass and I think that is a question that needs to be addressed. However even dbhalling stated only some libertarians don't have an understanding of property rights, however is that something that objectivism understands unlike libertarianism?

Mr. Shipley we have shown that independent and simultaneous invention does not occur. Your are disingenuous, you don't care about facts. Being second to a mining claim or second to land claim, you still invested effort, but only one person is the owner. Being independent is not only dubious claim in inventions, but is impractical from an evidentiary point of view.

You are a sophist and more bluntly a SCUM.

I admit I lost my temper the first time DB unloaded on me and called me a moocher and much more because I disagreed with him. I apologize for that. I will try to refrain when attacked in the future.

I do not apologize for having strong feelings about the industry I spent the last 40 years in, the first half of which was before the explosion of software patents in the 1990's. I don't actually agree with the view of the industry you espouse. I think software patents are destroying what once was a vibrant industry that people in their garages could get into. Had the patent office only patented unique concept like the LZW patent it would be one thing but when they start patenting things like ring buffers storing bits they move into locking down obvious algorithms that any professional can come up with -- which they are not supposed to do.

you know what? you have brought this up more than once. do not act like you haven't. Insulting and anti-capitalist:" those who made their living off of IP" mean and disingenuous. I do not take on your area of expertise and attempt to discredit you on making a living in your area. You have done this several times to us. noted. "those who made their living off of IP "

Why is it necessary to be insulting in a philosophical discussion?

My perspective is that I am entitled to the fruits of my intellect. If that is mean spirited - so be it.

it is a strawman. YEARS were put into your concept. NOT HAPPENING exactly the same way. sigh. there is no evidence I can provide you to satisfy your belief. It is a zero sum concept. So stick to your belief. It is a belief you know. someone always wins in these patent law cases. the judge never rules that both parties are simultaneous. geez, stick to your expertise and we stick to ours. and we back our decisions with a solid philosophy of life. there is no greater vetting that I can think of?! I am dealing with a mystical notion of yours so banging my head against a door. Think like this-Dale is in the business. IF there were huge cases as you suggest, Dale would be a billionaire litigating them! Instead, we scrap and pull to get examiners to be rational. Your perspective is mean-spirited and right out of AS

Note, I didn't say simultaneous. I said independent. if I come up with the same idea that you did, even at a different point in time, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO YOUR IDEA, then it is the fruit of my labor just as much as yours is the fruit of your own labor. I can't see a philosophical justification for you owning my labor.

Now proving independence could be tricky but that's a practical consideration not a moral one.

I hope someday it will happen. simultaneous invention just does not happen. The PTO has studied this and run programs to catch it-to no success. What is important is disseminating knowledge. Patents do this. You can't use Inventor's methods, so you invent something else. Please look into the sewing machine patent pools. Libertarians don't like any of that. but-is it fair to say, that I cannot own my ideas? How can I make inventing a profession. You love to bring up that since Dale makes a living in this area, that somehow our thinking and philosophy is self serving. Well ironic in Objectivism, I turn and ask you the same question. Your expertise is sullied because you have a business in a certain area. How do you respond to that? It is insulting and frankly meant to divert attention from expertise. Like playing poker

Actually, I wasn't specifically trying to goad you, I was pointing out that while some libertarians don't believe in IP rights, others very definitely do. I am, of course in the category of people who do.

Not to trigger yet another IP battle I will say that our discussions have caused me to think about the philosophical underpinnings of my thoughts on IP.

While I unhesitatingly believe that I have the right to my intellectual creations, I am having difficulty with the idea that I have the right to prevent anyone else from independently having the same idea. Is that not their intellectual creation?

This discussion will be better have over coffee, beer or your beverage of choice at some point in the future.

If only you could see all of the comments since I first came to the site, where gulchers told me they were sick of me quoting Rand and wanted my own opinion. ironic

ok. I'm glad you are reading through her works. and I made those comments because I cannot make the case the best. I am here to just encourage gulchers to go find out more. I am not an Objectivist expert. I am a student. Your last statement is provocative and meant to goad me. Ok. Please consider reading Dale's book on Source of Economic Growth. "fought with those who made their living off of IP" then they are fighting with LF capitalism. So, be my guest. rag on capitalism. looking forward to that debate :)

As to my personal path, I've been reading through Rand's work. In any issue on the gulch I try to find Rand's actual words rather than someone interpreting it.

But once again we seem to be talking about how libertarians aren't all objectivists. No question there. I recently attended an EFF gathering where the people who thought all IP should be free fought with those who made their living off of IP and disagreed.

I was interested in the philosophical discussion, but this simple line about a culture of objectivity stands out most to me: "But without a basis in a culture that prizes objectivity, achievement, and personal happiness, the libertarian cause can never succeed.". It seems like there should be a big and prosperous tent full of people who share those values.

well, he is reaching out. That does not mean that it is not important to concentrate on the differences philosophically

libertarians are all over the map-precisely because there are no foundations other than non-aggression to the fundamentals. You need to gain knowledge of Objectivism. Where would you like to start? with Rand's thoughts on Libertarianism or Capitalism or maybe Peikoff's Ominous Parallels. These questions are answered and are important.

Since Objectivism is a complete philosophical system and Libertarianism is a collection of a variety of philosophical systems with overlapping goals, it seems to me perfectly reasonable that there would be Objectivist libertarians as well as anarchist libertarians.

The discussion keeps involving statements such as 'some libertarians believe x' and objectivists don't believe that. The key is 'some'. It is perfectly reasonable to say all A is B but not all B is A.

As someone who has generally considered myself a libertarian, I haven't found anything in the objectivist philosophy that doesn't lie within the broad definition of libertarianism.

Even the article quickly switched to explaining the things that some libertarians believed which were inconsistent with objectivism -- but that isn't at issue. The issue is whether there are things that objectivists believe that lie outside the broader circle of beliefs that could be called libertarian.

William Thomas states that “Objectivism is a libertarian philosophy” and “the libertarian movement in general is a positive force for political change”. I think this is a reasonable assessment of the growing libertarian movement from an Objectivist perspective.