mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Maybe my question is historical rather than philosophical. In actual
practice, how odd are the injustices, how much shit happens? How
often do big corporations with high-powered lawyers steal ideas of
independent inventors? How often do big corporations get patents on
ideas that were "in the air" as a result of ideas being bounced around
by hundreds of individuals?

The open-source movement in software seems like an illustration of the
progress that can be made when patents don't get in the way.

I think Rand would have liked to patent Objectivism. She complained
bitterly about anyone who tried to incorporate her ideas into their own
philosophies rather than quoting her verbatim. Howard Roarke
destroyed a building in which his ideas had been merged and corrupted
by second-rate additions. But I think Roarke was wrong. Once he had
communicated his ideas to another mind, they were no longer his
exclusive property. (Actually, Roarke might have been justified
because his contract had been violated by the adulteration of his
ideas. But that's another issue.) Once an idea is generally known,
the only way to "own" that idea is to incorporate it into physical
property that you own. If Roarke had financed the building himself,
then he would own that building which would then be his own
private-property embodiment of the idea.

Suppose the Fountainhead building had been constructed exactly as
Roarke designed it. But then somebody else (who had not contracted
with Roarke) constructed a building incorporating Roarke's ideas along
with a bunch of second-rate additions? Would Roarke have blown up
that building? I hope not.

Suppose, after the adulterated building had been constructed, somebody
else copied it but with the second-rate additions removed so the new
copy was exactly as Roarke had originally designed it? Would Roarke
sue? Probably not, even though he might then have a solid legal case.

Throughout history, architects have learned more from failed buildings
than from successful ones. Does that mean that successful architects
should pay royalties to their unsuccessful predecessors?

All wealth ultimately comes from ideas. However, I think ideas should
only become property when they are incorporated into specific physical
objects. Each physical object should then belong to whoever created
that object, not to the creator of the idea. The creator of the object
is much easier to identify than the creator of the idea. And
possession of the object is much easier to defend than possession of an
idea. Once you share an idea, how can you continue to have exclusive
control of that idea, unless you assert ownership of every person who
subsequently hears that idea (or thinks of it independently)?
Enforcement of property rights to physical objects is practical and
benefical. Enforcement of property rights to ideas is tyrannical.
Patent enforcers are "thought police." I know governments enforce
patents, but that does not make them right. Governments once enforced
slavery.

Morality isn't about giving everybody what he deserves. The greatest
geniuses, the greatest benefactors of mankind, rarely get what they
deserve. Morality is about getting along with each other profitably,
without killing each other. The criteria of moral action is to what
extent it minimizes the initiation of force and fraud, not to what
extent it rewards people with "what they deserve." "Use every man
after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your
own honour and dignity." - Hamlet

The English government tried to monopolize the Industrial Revolution.
The Industrial Revolution was brought to America by English and
Scottish craftsmen who were "stealing" English trade secrets and
violating English patent laws.

The rapid progress in Silicon Valley was largely due to companies
hiring away each other's engineers, thus cross-pollinating each other
with "stolen" ideas.
- Ray