Objectivists Vs. Scientologists

[A Man In Black]

Generally not taken very seriously by anyone not already an objectivist.

Or by anyone outside the US, I should add.

[Kaelik]

Generally not taken very seriously by anyone not already an objectivist.

Or by anyone outside the US, I should add.

Um...

If they are an objectivist, then they take her seriously even if they are from England.

If they are not objectivist, then they are already included in the subset of non objectivists.

Your statement adds no new correct information, and some new false information.

[norms29]

... mistakenly believing it's how the US system worked, defended granting patents to the first guy to get to the patent office.

uh... citation needed. I remember reading something making the exact opposite argument and I think it was from her, Although I may be mixing her up with some other free-market person... also... doesn't the US system do that? or at least used to?

BRB... exam.

Back: like I was saying, isn't there some story or urban legend or something about some famous 19th century inventer beating a guy nobody's heard of to the patent office by a matter of hours?

EDIT II: the argument I was refering to went that patent rights should go to the innovator(s) so if you invented something independantly you should get the same patent rights even though you weren't the first to file the paperwork. BUT the standard of proof would "neccasserily" be higher for subsequent claims, because they'd need to prove that they didn't copy the first guy

[Sarandosil]

... mistakenly believing it's how the US system worked, defended granting patents to the first guy to get to the patent office.

uh... citation needed. I remember reading something making the exact opposite argument and I think it was from her, Although I may be mixing her up with some other free-market person... also... doesn't the US system do that? or at least used to?

BRB... exam.

Back: like I was saying, isn't there some story or urban legend or something about some famous 19th century inventer beating a guy nobody's heard of to the patent office by a matter of hours?

From her book, Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal:

As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will aquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser's work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first does not alter the fact that he wasn't. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition.

You could argue she's talking about patent law in general rather than the US laws, and there's enough room to take it either way. There might be other places where the link is clearer, I'm mostly remembering this from a Stephan Kinsella interview that I heard ages ago.

I'll get back to you on the actual law, but it's my understanding that you do have some recourse if someone beats you to the patent office.

Edit: You're probably thinking of the who-invented-the-telephone thing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gra ... ontroversy

[Sarandosil]

Wup, here we go. First to file versus first to invent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_f ... _to_invent

Though it's probably true in practice that first to file wins pretty much all the time.

[Crissa]

And technically there is room in the US law to invent things independently - this is why we have more than one chipmaker and more than one compatible core for PCs.

However, you need a very hefty legal department to get anywhere. Elisha Gray did not have this, and Edison/Bell had the best lawyers of the time.

-Crissa

[A Man In Black]

...

If they are an objectivist, then they take her seriously even if they are from England.

If they are not objectivist, then they are already included in the subset of non objectivists.

Your statement adds no new correct information, and some new false information.

It adds the new information that Objectivists is mostly a subset of the set Americans.

[norms29]

From her book, Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal:

[relevant quote]

hmm... shit. now I have to figure out who I was mistaking for her...

EDIT: quote tags

[Kaelik]

It adds the new information that Objectivists is mostly a subset of the set Americans.

No it doesn't add that information. Like at all. It only says that "Most non Americans are not objectivists."

Which is fucking trite since the statement: "Most Americans are not objectivists" is equally as true.