There are new people to the site who don't yet know Objectivism. On my posts, I will point out where relevant. It does not keep someone disagreeing with Objectivism from making their argument. But t is relevant to show the distinctions.
"...those who do believe in what you term "mysticism" don't belong on a site devoted to "Objectivism."'
I have never said this on this site. I would not use the term "devoted" in speaking about Objectivism. I did use the word "promote." There is a huge difference. This site definitely promotes the ideas of Objectivism and Capitalism.
Why is it important to make the distinction? Because there are from time to time contributors on this site who attempt to hide ideas they are actually promoting. Anarchism is one area I find dangerous. To be perfectly honest, I find it
more dangerous in how anarchists try to hide that agenda by getting people to buy into sloppy utilitarianism ignoring important philosophical foundations.
As far as Christianity goes, I do not find it dangerous-just illogical and mystical. I've never met a Christian on this site yet, trying to hide Christian values. Christians openly promote their beliefs. That's straightforward and honest. Many Anarchists, especially anti-patent crowd, purposely distort facts and outright lie to push their agenda. I will always point out that Objectivism supports all property rights, including intellectual property. I will continue to point out that in Atlas Shrugged intellectual property and patents are discussed around 200 times. Including a very important discussion between Cheryl and James Taggert regarding Rearden metal.

hiring private firms to enforce agreements is still the definition of a government

"A person who invents something is a "moocher" if someone else thought of it first" This is why we need and have patent offices. The inventor is the person who registers the idea first unless someone can prove otherwise.

"Violating the Constitution?" Since when does holding an opinion or belief violate the Constitution? Have we finally arrived at the age of thoughtcrime?

As a computer programmer for 33 years, I'm well aware of what computers are capable of. Check out neural networks, genetic algorithms, and agent-based models. Computers are becoming more and more powerful and more and more capable of mimicking aspects of human thought processes, discovering relationships and finding more efficient ways of performing physical and mental tasks.

I'll say it again: The legal issues regarding computer-related patents are only going to get murkier as computers continue to become more powerful and produce inventions of their own without direct human intervention.

So when I say something, I'm "really" saying something else. If I disagree with your definition of property, I'm advocating theft. A person who invents something is a "moocher" if someone else thought of it first. And what’s with the personal attacks?

I completely agree, db. Pendulum of Justice illustrated that point very well.

Brilliant Mike. You base you decision on one data point, that is a purposeful mis-characterization. You are clearly incorrect about the XOR being known before the patent was filed. If was created years before as part of a CAD computer system. Then people started using it and it became part of the VGA (I think) standard. So your facts are wrong, but you are good a spreading socialist propaganda designed to destroy people's property rights.

J,

The real effects will not be on big companies, it will be on startups who cannot get funding. Big companies are valued on their existing revenue streams mainly. Startups are valued based on their technology and ownership thereof.

Define Abstract. By definition an invention is an abstraction, just as the word humans is an abstraction that classifies a number of specific instances.

All inventions are a combination of existing or known elements. The reason we know this is because of conservation of energy and matter.

Some people have attempted to define Novel as creating something from nothing, which is impossible. Just like the AWG people they set an impossible goal and then use this to attack legitimate property rights.

By the way two-clicks is all that Barnes and Noble had to do to avoid Amazon's patent. The fact that they took this to court is what is outrageous.

It would be interesting to see how excoriated an Objectivist patent lawyer would be, should he/she ever be nominated for SCOTUS.

First of all the fact that you call a patent a monopoly, means you do not understand patents. The reality is you don't understand property rights, you don't understand this technology This patent is not an escrow arrangement, requires a very specific process (But because the Supreme Court does not know how to read a patent claim they ignore are the real world limitations), saves people billions of dollars, and did not exist until Alice created it. Note that escrow systems existed for centuries and CLS did not create an escrow system, they decided to steal Alice's technology

Actually there is no evidence that either of these Justices are strong property rights advocates. If you read the decision it is illogical on its face. It shows they cannot read patent claims. It shows that they do not understand patent law. They fail to read claims correctly. They violate the laws of physics by saying each part of the claim is well known. (Its called conservation of matter and energy). You have proven you also are impervious to logic and reason.