Any one against patents but claims to be objective is not only a poser but a "moocher" as well.

What do you think about the government's right to use patents and the indemnification allowed to third parties in the FAR?

It's very simple. You create it--you own it.
To own it means doing with it what you want.
To take what another owns without consent is theft.
Legalized theft is still theft.

Perhaps what patents really do is force inventors to get around patents by more inventing. Maybe thats why the countries with strong patents are wealthier.

Once the patent is granted, the government is giving the patent holder a monopoly enforced by the police powers of the government, resulting in higher prices for the patented goods.

I am not happy with the current patent system at all. Its expensive, requires patent lawyers who charge high fees, and is populated by patent trolls who never plan on actually making anything, but just keeping others from the fruits of THEIR thought processes.

Its government granted monopolies to those who pay the entry fees to get the government protection, not necessarily protecting the ones who actually did the inventing.

I hold several patents so my position on the subject should be obvious. Intellectual property is like any other property. Denying ownership of IP is the same as denying ownership of land, money, personal items, etc.

Real simple if you do not benefit from your original ideas then the very drive to inavate disappears.

We have. Thank you.

I want you and your students to take ownership in their intellectual thoughts

thank you for getting it

these rights are based in your rights as a human

A rejection to the rights of patents is a rejection of competition. If someone invents a product that needs technology that is patented and one cannot afford it, you do some hard work and invent your way around that patent or you invent your own technology.
My definition of Competition: Two or more individuals dependent upon each other to be the very best they can be.

Thank you for your strong advocacy on patents. It makes life tolerable in a world that largely makes invention more challenging than it should be, particularly when government sponsors your competition. A colleague of mine is begging me to add to his biofuels proposal to the Department of Energy, and it has been quite an effort this week to tell him politely no. I told him about my former biofuels business, but I haven't yet told him about the Objectivist influence on why I have not been helping him. I think that will be tomorrow. Right now I am experiencing feelings similar to when there was a debate as to whether to tell Rearden that Dagny was safe (after crashlanding into the Gulch), and as was decided then, it was inappropriate to tell Rearden even though the temptation was strong.

Good one! Being against patents to me is like being against ownership of one's life. I can't compromise on either one.