I vote down people who are being intellectually dishonest or are so ignorant of the issues as to appear so. That is you blarman.

I vote down people who are being intellectually dishonest or are so ignorant of the issues as to appear so. That is you blarman.

I vote down people who are being intellectually dishonest or are so ignorant of the issues as to appear so. That is you blarman.

Yes. I accept the common usage.
1.patents do not grant the owner complete control of an entire supply-in fact they do not allow the owner to even make the good much less "control" a market.
2. a patent does not give the owner exclusive possession or control. (Swan vs. Edison)
3. a patent is not a commodity
On this post, db gave you 5 articles explaining in great detail the differences between the two. It is exhausting to repeat again and again what is objectively known. We're done. Move on to another argument.

I think you are getting downvoted for not sticking with legal definitions of terms, of refusing to acknowledge logical derivations of concepts. Go to any Objectivist site, and study up on why humans have rights in the products of their mind. We are using philosophical and legal standard definitions. Your refusal to accept those definitions, hinders the discussion not advances it.

yes, obviously. you are not using standard language so I'm not sure what you mean by "primacy use of property." Property rights are a bundle of different rights or different aspects. You have the right to lease, to exclude someone using your land, Land is not the property. The property right is what the owner's relationship is to the land. The land exists. If you own the land(shorthand phrase), you have certain rights associated with that land. Those rights are never unlimited nor are they a monopoly. These are the legal definitions. To move the discussion, please stick to the correct logical and legal structure of property rights. Ultimately, they are about the law, because that is how they are enforced.
The market isn't tied to the property right.
"The claim that the government grants a right to a market should immediately offend any true Objectivist because it is an assertion that the government has the right to create and/or control such markets in the first place! "
THERE is the difference between property rights and Monopoly. In a patent, the government does NOT grant an exclusive right in a market. The government does NOT even grant a right to sell the invention.
We are using standard legal definitions for these terms of property right and monopoly. Are you?

Hi Bob. there are other laws which limit property rights. Your property rights are limited firt and foremost by others' property rights. Patent rights are one of many property rights, all with slightly different characteristics.

To your first point DBH, zoning laws , at the local county level dictate what you can "do" on your private property - commercial vs residential vs industrial. Totally agree on the clear distinction between property rights and patent rights.
Cheers

You are a lawyer - not even a programmer - and you are trying to tell me what I have been doing for the last twenty years? What my father did for 25 years? What my father-in-law did for 40 years? What my brothers-in-law currently do for a living?

The arrogance of presumption on your part in absolute and total opposition to the evidence is shocking - and most especially to someone who claims to place primacy of fact as the pinnacle of one's personal philosophy. I leave you to your own devices.

"you are not serious, you are not interested in logic and evidence" = ad hominem attack

Ad hominem attack is example of logical fallacy

Use of logical fallacy = abrogation of logical process

Accusation of opponent failing to abide by process of logical discovery immediately after violating process of logical discovery through ad hominem attack = blatant hypocrisy.

A statement that is entirely an ad hominem attack, and yet you go on as if I am the one not adhering to the principles of a logical debate. Then you downvote me for asking questions that expose the vulnerability of your positions?

You want to call that rational? You want to set yourself up as the paragon of logic while simultaneously violating the very principles of such with the very basest of logical fallacies? And then you want to claim that I am not "advancing the discussion" simply because I have a fundamental disagreement on the definition which happens to represent the cornerstone of your argument?

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.

But you did create your body, you maintained it and fed it and took care of it. You put your labor both of the mind and body, into keeping yourself alive. That's what makes it yours. You mixed your time and energy with it. It's the same with a patent. You mixed your time and energy into establishing a new set of instructions. So it's yours, and if other people take that thing you produced, and use it without your permission, it's theft.

Then after 20 years or whatever the government takes your property away from you for the public good.

From Merriam-Webster:

mo·nop·o·ly noun \mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē\
1: complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market
2: exclusive possession or control
3: a commodity controlled by one party

What I have been trying to point out to you all along is that you are using a definition that is incorrect when you assert that a patent is NOT a monopoly. The dictionary very clearly disagrees with you - as do I. The fundamental disagreement is not a logical one, it is a definitional one. Logic is extrapolation based on definition. One must assert A before one can assert A -> B. You are asserting A and I am pointing out that your assertion of A is fundamentally fallacious - that you are not accurately describing A.