" It may engross a vast, unknown, and perhaps unknowable area. Such a patent may confer power to block off whole areas of scientific development, without compensating benefit to the public. "
just read this bullshit! "unknowable"-I guess they're worried about a "monopoly" on God.
"without compensating benefit to the public." well that's a statement straight out of Atlas Shrugged!

yes, the Supreme Court has proven to be anti-patent. what do you expect? it was a liberal court in the 60s not one of them is a patent attorney or competent to be a patent atty (no scientific or engineering background). the word monopoly is a propaganda tool. do you agree with all of the Supreme Court decisions?
Here are some links explaining in depth:
Patents: Monopoly or Property Right a Testable Hypothesis http://hallingblog.com/patents-monopoly-...

Monopoly/Rent Seeking vs. Property Rights/Intellectual Property http://hallingblog.com/monopolyrent-seek...

More on the Myth that Patents are Monopolies http://hallingblog.com/more-on-the-myth-...

The Myth that Patents are a Monopoly http://hallingblog.com/the-myth-that-pat...

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966):

Whatever weight is attached to the value of encouraging disclosure and of inhibiting secrecy, we believe a more compelling consideration is that a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute. Until the process claim has been reduced to production of a product shown to be useful, the metes and bounds of that monopoly are not capable of precise delineation. It may engross a vast, unknown, and perhaps unknowable area. Such a patent may confer power to block off whole areas of scientific development, without compensating benefit to the public. The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point — where specific benefit exists in currently available form – there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.

“Section 154 and related provisions [e.g. Sec. 271] obviously are intended to grant a patentee a monopoly only over the United States market….” U.S. Supreme Court, Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972). See also: King Instr. v. Perego, by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Congress made the policy choice that the “carrot” of an exclusive market for the patented goods would encourage patentees to commercialize the protected inventions so that the public would enjoy the benefits of the new technology during the patent term in exchange for granting a limited patent monopoly. In other words, the public expected benefits during “‘the embarrassment of an exclusive patent as Jefferson put it.’” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1966).)

See also Engel Ind. v. Lockformer Co. (“We hold that the disputed royalties provisions do not inappropriately extend the patent monopoly to unpatented parts of the patented system”); Carborundum Co. v. Molten Metal Eq. Co. (“A patentee, in demanding and receiving full compensation for the wrongful use of his invention in devices made and sold by a manufacturer adopts the sales as though made by himself, and therefore, necessarily licenses the use of the devices, and frees them from the monopoly of the patent.”)

Of course patents are property! Why else would mr. thompson take them away with directive 10-289?

telephone. this is the standard explanation for "natural" monopolies.
it was only when MCI started providing private communication lines that they were forced to look at the issue. politics of the time allowed the competition and court decision to break up. I couldn't see that happening under the current administration.
Railroads were originally all private without govt incentives. so were most of the long distance roads and canals. The canals looked like they had a "natural" monopoly, guess what? all of a sudden had to compete with private toll roads! huh. and then those roads looked to be monopolies and along come railroads! and the original telegraph lines. they were put up all over the US without govt monopoly. so it is nonsense that there was a national Need for one dominant telephone company.
First rules about modern monopolies come about in statutes of monopolies in late 1600s England. this law limited power of govt(monarchy) to hand out monopolies called "patents" (not the same) to the King's friends. These patents gave them the right to keep competitors out of a specific market. A property right (patent) is neither property rights or patents do not give you a right to an entire market. US anti-trust law turned this on its head by enhancing govt's authority to restrict people's property and contractual rights. exact opposite of statute of monopolies. US anti-trust is standard liberal sleight of hand. thank you teddy roosevelt. it is about enhancing the power of the govt and taking away peoples' natural rights.

where did you get this quote. It is wrong.
PATENTS ARE NOT MONOPOLIES.
they are property rights. Do you have a monopoly over your house? no. it is your property. In the case of patents, it is recognized for a limited time period. this must be wikipedia gone wild.
"monopoly of a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when a business is dominant" when a business is dominant. I guess that means evil.
Progressive much??!

Ma Bell comes to my mind as a "legal monopoly".

The reasoning was that there needed to be a singular continuity, in order to build a nationwide network. It worked, and once the lines were in place the market was deregulated for competition's sake.

That also worked!

The railroads were almost similar, since a competing set of track gauges were fast becoming a nightmare. One company's rolling stock could not proceed on another company's lines, and so on. National interest was to build one system that had no technical barriers.

Ford almost never got going when he was dragged into court over patent violation issues. The government sided with the alleged patent holder, who demanded that Ford pay a royalty for every car built. Ford won...and 'owned' the automobile market for decades.

Wow! Wish she could have played Dagny!

I met another Rand biographer, Ann Heller, at the NYC Ayn Rand Meetup and the NYC Junto. Most local Objectivists seem to prefer her, Heller, to Burns I like them both.

That would be a "legal monoply", sanctioned by the state. There are two other forms of monoply:

"Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by integration.

In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when a business is dominant. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government granted monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly."

What's the name of the Gulch Pub again? Galt's Gulp? I need to go there.

ok, now I am laughing. and it's not even newssletter day!

A monopoly is a legal barrier to entry. Legal means govt.
A dominant competitor is not a monopoly. There are always alternatives and competitors as long as there is not a legal barrier to entry in the market.
Ford had a dozen competitors. success in the market is not a monopoly.

....and now I'm a troll. That's rich.

"You don't have to "assume" I pay my taxes...I told you so...unless you're insinuating I might be lying. (A liar AND a looter hmf). You called me a looter now you say I'm not one...I think you forgot something there."


You've 'jumped the shark', and entered into the Wonderful World of Trolling. 'Congratulations' on your side of a civil debate.

Talk to the hand....

You don't have to "assume" I pay my taxes...I told you so...unless you're insinuating I might be lying. (A liar AND a looter hmf). You called me a looter now you say I'm not one...I think you forgot something there.
What I do NOT want to pay for is other people's needs/wants/desires: education, food, rent, pensions, retirement, healthcare, vacations, seminars, retreats, golf, easter egg hunts, stimuluses, bail outs (of ANY kind), subsidies, stipends... etc. Forced charity...I want NO part of it. What I do want to pay for is the military, police, firemen, roads, trash pick up, water, and electricity.....the same things everybody else needs, and some could be run by private companies (and some are already). And it should be my choice to pay for these or not as well....if I don't pay then I don't get the service. Oh...I was using logic there again. Sorry. (Why are all bets off if I don't want to pay for other peoples shit. I don't want them to pay for mine...)

" I feel obligated to pay for what I want/use/and ask for."

Fine. But we are in a budgetary system, and don't get to 'pick and choose' our tax item liabilities. Other people are paying for your choices, even if they hate them. For you to opt out of funding their favorite things is stealing from them.

"It should be a vote, by individual citizens, not up to the corrupt fed who have a separate set of rules for themselves."

Two issues, but end up in the same answer: We are NOT a democracy, and never have been. We elect individuals to represent us, and make these decisions. If we are unhappy with their choices, we vote for someone else.

Now: assuming that you pay your taxes as prescribed, you are not a looter, in my mind.

Your sorta acknowledgement that some taxes are yours to pay, helps...but if you are willing to let others pick up the budgetary tab, while you only want to contribute to your personal items, then all bets are off.

I read them! You called me a looter and I want to know why...you haven't explained that yet. I feel obligated to pay for what I want/use/and ask for. I should have a choice in where my tax dollars go and how much. It should be a vote, by individual citizens, not up to the corrupt fed who have a separate set of rules for themselves. They vote themselves raises. We have a Constitution, ruled by laws, not mobs. How am I looter???

Let's try this: Do you feel any obligation to pay any taxes whatsoever?

We wouldn't have to do this if you would just read my posts in sequence....

I'm a looter how? Because our politicians are shit? Who said I was upset? I would just like an explanation.

Then wait.

Since the answer followed the part you are upset about, and in my subsequent posts about your tax situation.

The biggest monopolies predated any real regulation, and literally built this nation:

Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan and Henry Ford.

I liked the atmosphere under their guise, and wonder if we were right to stifle them?

I missed the entry exam...do I take it now?

To answer you, I am looking for ideas as to using what Ayn showed me in my daily world...and that world is a lot different than what goes on in here.

That means, to me, a pragmatic approach to her philosophy...not an intellectual 'got ya'!

I don't think that I am that alone in this.

I'm on the cover page of the Logic Land Mystical Theme Park Calendar. Circa 1985. The first "Hooter" you might say.

he might regret it I think, hooter girl
which month of the calendar are you?