So he 's whispering? ironic indeed

MM's comment, one of this, one of that:
I was going to write that MM is too clever for all of you who have no sense of irony, but well, I don't understand it either. Do not provoke MM too much or he will write another comment with upper case in favor of ultimate Balkanization - each individual is a sovereign state.

Ah sudden insight- when you see a lot of capitalization, something is going on. But when it is done by MM, it is the opposite.

hear hear

there is only one inventor or group of inventors. It's the definition of inventor. It is inefficient to grant a property right for the same invention to more than one inventor.

there is no exact answer. In Venice it was 10 years. Eventually we settled on 20 years from the filing date. It takes so long to get them examined, why shouldn't they last longer? It's somewhat arbitrary and therefore political. Copyright law is another question. Better for another post. These are procedural questions, not fundamental. They are important but do not go to the heart of what should/should not be a property right.

Hello dbhalling,
Thank you. I enjoyed the articles and always appreciate the knowledge shared. It is also fun to review/see references from Rand's books I haven't read in a while... helps to refresh the memory.
Regards,
O.A.

It is inheritable. And no property rights last forever. A dead person cannot own land. The heir has to take steps to create and continue the value of the land. In other words they have to undergo the same steps as the original owner.

There are also practical questions in law. One is who has the best title to property. An heir has more right to real property than anyone else (they may have undertaken many steps to make the property valuable) and has to take steps to continue the value. The same is not true in Intellectual Property. The great great grand child does nothing to continue the value of an incandescent light and could not have contributed anything to the original development.

perpetual patent rights violates the very reason for property rights - creation. With real property the heir has to take steps to continue the value in the property or they lose it.

But unfortunately the application of reason is not universal.

You are completely right to complain about this. It is clearly a violation of Constitution and the logic of patents.

Patent rights are inheritable.

All property rights end. A dead person cannot own something.

No property rights last forever. A dead person cannot own property. With land or personal property the person that inherits has to take actions to continue to make it their property, which renews the reason for the property rights. Failure to do so causes them to lose their property rights.

Patents are treated as personal property and can be inherited. NO property rights last forever. A dead person cannot own something.

The change was in 2013 and the talk was before then.

OA very good points, but I do have one point to add.

Patent law is based on who is the inventor, not who is the first to get to the patent office. The first-to-file system is unconstitutional. The first person to the patent office is not the inventor, the first person to create the invention - in modern patent law the first person to reduce it to practice.

Keep pushing your nonsense. 1st it never happens. Two people do not literally invent exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. 2nd there are an infinite number of inventions, if you were not first you are not the inventor move on there are more inventions.

Laws based on reason and the nature of man would essentially be the same everywhere. We don't have US Euclidean geometry and Chilean Euclidean Geometry

No they don't, they are derived from Locke's ideas. Although the first modern patent law was enacted in Venice in 1474.

Copyrights are granted by nations. Land patents, the homestead act, were granted by the government. The government recognizes the right of creation and provides property rights.

worldwide property right recognition is hardly advocating for a world govt. what nonsense! -1

Understood. I had no idea who posed the question. I simply passed along his reply to what I thought was part of what you were looking for... Likewise... No harm... I wish I knew more. I am interested and always trying to learn.

See my comment to jbrenner. Musicians are paid ROYALTIES according to contractual rights in "intellectual property" in their performances. These are different from copyrights and patents. This is further support for IP laws based on objective, not traditional, considerations.

This is exactly how PERFORMANCE rights pass. ASCAP and BMI have rules that are apparently too complicated for software - and this is for LIVING artists. When a recording is sold _ALL_ of the performers are entitled their rights, the nameless studio musicians no less than the named vocalist. It works here and now. It is not elegant, but intellectual property rights DIFFERENT FROM copyrights and patents are passed along.

I did not know Paine had no descendants. With the option for a corporation or foundation as a means for inheritance in addition to the life of the author plus x years, I think that covers everything. Just establish the appropriate corporation or foundation.

I never offered a hypothetical about an inventor's car breaking down on the way to the patent office. That was the strawman of Adam Mosshoff who clearly did not understand US Patent Law of the time which until 2011 granted rights to the FIRST TO INVENT, not the first to file. It did not matter back then if you filed after someone else. dhalling was responding to someone and something else entirely, not to me. I appreciate the fact that you choose not to argue beyond your area of interest. No harm; no foul.