THEY CAN'T SELL REARDEN METAL.
There's no false assumption, I was around for the clone wars when nobody could guarantee how compatible their "pc" was, because they had to make the ROMS different due to IBMs patents.

The compatibles eventually reverse engineered the ROMs and got around the patent issues.

Please tell Apple to stop suing Samsung, then.

Fine, you win. I oppose what you call patents then. Monopolies are evil, period; whether you call them patents or monopolies.

Apple has *never* created anything. Every idea out of Apple comes from earlier works of other people. And yet Apple time after time uses "software patents", not to protect its creations, but to try to squash competition. And the only check in capitalism is competition.

Rearden has a legal authority to exclusive production and sale of his metal due to his patents.

Once that time is up, the authority dissolves, and anyone who wants and is able can make Rearden metal and sell it.

If Rearden manufactures a Rearden metal girder for me, I can sell it to whomever I choose. I just can't make my own Rearden metal girder and sell it... without his permission. That's an effective monopoly.

---
mo·nop·o·ly
noun \mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē\

: complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market

: a large company that has a monopoly

: complete ownership or control of something
---

It's just too bad they weren't able to patent the formula for steel when it was invented. Imagine all the things we could make out of steel if only the poor inventor could have monopolized the production and use of his invention. We might have hundred story tall skyscrapers, and rust resistant knives, and who knows what else? But, since in the history of the world steel wasn't patented, we had an under investment in inventions and no steel knives, stainless steel razors, skyscrapers, automobiles (unless we lept straight to aluminum, hello death rate), storage tanks, nor all that other stuff made of Steel's metal.

I hereby patent the automobile; you can sell products that compete, but you can't make automobiles. Which is bullshit.


Duplicate of invention takes place all the time; just check a website that sells Chinese knock-offs of iPhones and Galaxies et al, in spite of patents.

In summary (and then I'm done arguing with you):
I believe in patents, insofar as they grant you a legal, time-limited power to produce and sell a product, with the caveat that at the time of patent you provide an exact description of the product and/or process, and when the patent expires, it enters the public domain.

Otherwise... don't patent and take your chances of being ripped off. You're on your own, society will not help you if you refuse to trade value for value.

You have the right to sell an invention.
So tell me, Hank Rearden had the right to exclude everyone else from selling Rearden metal. How is that different from an exclusive right to the market of Rearden metal?

It, in fact, doesn't just give you the power to exclude others from selling you invention, but it gives you the power to exclude others from selling duplicates of your invention. It was a serious issue back in the 80s and why we had IBM clones and IBM compatibles.

An effective monopoly is a monopoly.

The only economic I disagreed with was:
"End government barriers to international free trade."

On personal:
I was maybe on military service, maybe on sex and disagree on drugs. Agreed with other two.

The purpose of a patent is to allow a time-limited monopoly of 17 years, after which its released to the public.

I'm 60% on personal, 80% on economic.

But it still calls me a libertarian.

The quiz isn't comprehensive enough for a meaningful determination.

It depends on what you mean by 'strong'.

Disney has long, long abused the copyright laws. Walt Disney has been dead for decades, yet the corporation has kept an iron fist around any image or media related to their characters.

Copyrights and patents were designed to give their creators a time-limited monopoly, in exchange for eventual release of their invention.

It's a logic bug I saw in Atlas Shrugged; the gov't was sooo terribly determined to get Rearden's patents... why?

A patent must show the exact design or process for which a patent is applied. All the information needed is already there.

If it's the government that wants to make Rearden metal... they can just do like they do with immigration laws... ignore it. They don't need any gift certificates.

If by "strong" you mean "heavily enforced", I agree. If you mean "enduring", I disagree. There comes a time when any work has pervaded society so much that keeping it copywrited or patented is hindering future development more than its encouraging it.

Software "patents" are an abomination in the way they are abused. Apple is a great abuser of patents, yet they're almost never stopped. Apple is always borrowing from previous existing works, changing something superfluous, and claiming patent rights.

There was an interesting episode of "House" where the new boss who owns a pharmaceutical company tries to get House to endorse a new medicine.
In his speech, House points out that they merely added an inert ingredient because the patent was expiring, and this way they could continue holding a monopoly. This, if it happens, would be an unacceptable abuse, imo.

The important thing is to maintain a tight balance between encouraging innovation by releasing new developments for others to expand upon, and encouraging innovation by protecting the profitability of said innovations.