The issue on this thread relates to the concept of patents and their philosophical justification. The issue of “copying without inventing” is a separate topic that requires its own discussion.

Both patent law and its philosophical underpinnings regard subsequent inventors as having no rights to the manufacture or distribution of their product. You are presenting your own definition of a patent, which attempts to get around the glaring deficiencies of the standard definition by allowing an exception in the case of an “independent inventor”. And in doing so you are contradicting yourself.

If the invention created by the second inventor is indeed the “product of his own mind”, then the case for granting special privileges to the first inventor collapses. Man has a right to the product of his own mind. This right is not contingent upon whether someone previously had the same idea or came up with the same invention.

So you say that the invention created by the second inventor is not the “product of his own mind”. But if that is true, then your entire case for making any exception for the second inventor collapses. If the invention is not a product of the second inventor’s mind, how is he entitled to any kind of special treatment apart from those who did not invent the product?

As it should.

Sorry but your position allows for anyone who comes along after the fact. To blatantly copy from the original whether or not they actually thought of anything or not.

So my position is that if you didn't come up with it first the No it is not a product of your mind and that the person who originally came up with it, can "afford" the rare one offs of someone building one for personal use. But that it would be theft for that person to market the product.

No it isn’t. What patents protect is a grant of exclusivity to the patent holder, regardless of whether someone else comes up with the same idea then or later.

Take a close look at what you’re saying: My idea is not the product of my mind if someone came up with the same idea earlier. Well, it certainly is the product of my mind if it is produced by my mental activity. What else would it be?

You say that “as long as you (the subsequent inventor) are not selling the product you have the right to make and use anything that you can produce.” As far as I know, neither patent law nor the philosophy behind alleged patent rights allow for this exception. And by making such a statement, you are in effect admitting that my independently created invention is a product of my own mind.

Requiring me to perform patent research before using or selling my product is an initiation of force, regardless of how little or how much time such research takes.

The rest of your post consists of assertions with no evidence. You claim that the first person to come up with the idea or invention deserves government-enforced exclusivity on the implementation of that idea for a period of time determined by that same government. No he doesn’t. No one deserves special privileges that violate the rights of others.

Wrong it clearly IS the case. In this day and age where literally everything is online. If you have an idea with a minor amount of research you can determine if you are original or not. Whoever does the work to get the patent DESERVES to be rewarded.

Of course as long as you are not selling the product you have the right to make and use anything that you can produce. But as soon as you want to sell it the first guy to patent deserves his cut.

You have the right to the products of your own mind but taking the product of someone else's mind is theft. That right you do not have and is what patents protect.

And that’s precisely where the concept of patents fails. In order to defend patents, one has to present “product of the inventor’s own mind” as a defining characteristic of the invention. This is not acceptable, even in principle, since it is possible for another person to come up with the same idea or invention minutes (or years) later. Patent advocates sometimes attempt to skirt this issue by claiming that it is a product of the first inventor’s own mind but not the product of the subsequent inventor’s own mind. This is clearly not the case.

Agreed but how do you have the right to the product of someone else's mind? That's what the concept of patents protect.

Why? Rights are rights. Either you have the right to the product of your own mind or you don't. If you do have that right, then you have the right to sell or exchange it.

If that man is making a thing for his own personal use, I agree. But as soon as you want to make commercial benefit from the idea. Whoever originated the idea deserves the benefit.

Okay, let me rephrase. “Man has a right to the product of his own mind. This right is not contingent upon whether someone previously had the same idea or came up with the same invention. Nor is it contingent upon how long ago someone had the same idea or came up with the same invention.” You cannot secure a right for one person by violating the rights of others, even temporarily. Not to mention that there is no objective way to determine the amount of time that is “reasonable” for a patent to exist.

And that's why patents have expiration dates. To allow the person with the original idea a reasonable amount of time to reap the benefit and then open it to the world.

Re: “. . . the person who originally invents something deserves to be the one who benefits from it.” There’s a difference between benefiting from one’s invention and being given exclusive control over the ability to produce it and use it in commerce. As the “independent inventor” example demonstrates, the “benefits” conferred by patents violate the rights of others at a fundamental level. Man has a right to the product of his own mind. This right is not contingent upon whether someone previously had the same idea or came up with the same invention.

I agree with you on imports; however, I still think the person who originally invents something deserves to be the one who benefits from it.

My expertise is in IT as well. I am envisioning as broad a range as possible.

The OP is a bit confused. The question is not patents or no patents but what types of patents are reasonable, for how long a term and with what kinds of enforcement.

Re: “The problem with that is without patent protection those with money could just sit back and grab good marketable ideas and under cut the original producer.” This sounds like a variation of the argument for “protective” tariffs. “The problem is that without tariff protection, rich foreigners will produce goods that they will sell to our country’s consumers more cheaply and undercut our domestic industries.” So what? That’s competition, an essential component of capitalism, and it is not the function of government to shield producers from competitors.

Correction~
You are a free agent with a skill set.
Of course, the highest bidder wins your time.
You make money to advance yourself, perhaps to also feed a family.
Only socialists would think anything about you belongs to them.
And all that little bit ain't hard for old dino to figure out.

I will admit that my area of interest and expertise is software. Knowing how a feature works is the first step in a relatively long process of designing and testing your own copy. It's a much faster moving world than hardware.

When you are engineering devices or producing drugs the situation is significantly different.

If there is no patent protection they could just buy one of yours copy everything and be able to get to market maybe 3 months behind you. The protection prevents that. Imagine spending a few years developing something and then loosing your market because they can out produce you

Well, it may be arrogance, but I always say I'd be glad for my competitors to copy my work -- that means they'll always be a year or two behind. They get to start designing their version after mine goes to market and I'm working on the next thing.

As a sort of "entrepreneur" (I sub-contract my skills and talents to folks who need my skills an knowledge) I consider my time to be something that is a sellable commodity.
The highest bidder wins my time.

I suppose I am a capitalistic prostitute (of sorts).

Not a bad gig...as long as there are an abundance of "Johns" !

The rub will come when government decides that my time belongs to them. 😬

lol. I'm in that basket. there are others on this site, just so you know, who have an agenda. I am well aware of this. I am on this forum more than anyone.

the dogma is your long comments with no real evidence and almost makes me want to call in the admins. but I won't.