Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

John Galt Solutions Inc.

Rate this topic


A.West

Recommended Posts

Is anyone familiar with John Galt Solutions Inc.? They make business forecast and enterprise planning software. It looks like it's high-end stuff that gets implemented in management information systems. I see they have a package called the "Atlas Planning Suite." So I'm pretty sure the name isn't accidental, but there's no mention at all of Ayn Rand on their website, http://www.johngalt.com .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone familiar with John Galt Solutions Inc.? ...  there's no mention at all of Ayn Rand on their website ...

This could mean then that the founders of this company are ripping off Ayn Rand's work. She invented the character of John Galt. She created the novel that made him artistically real. And now someone comes along and appropriates her creations without the express permission of her estate? Is that the situation here?

I do not know what the legal situation is, but ethically it is repulsive if it is really the way it appears to be through the description in the first post of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they've got a logo which has the world balanced on top of the A(tlas) in gAlt.

The company name is a play on the novel, not a rip off of its ideas. In comparison, calling one's new album a Concerto of Deliverance is a rip off of the idea. The latter means, "this is what AR had in mind". The former does not.

However, when I first came upon this thread and went to their site, my initial response was "cool". Did I know a single thing about their company? No. They got a favorable response from me nonetheless. Did they earn that response? No.

They hijacked Ayn Rand's reputation in order to advertise themselves. While it is not as bad as, "this is what AR had in mind", it is still saying that "we are in some undefined way associated or connected with AR and her philosophy", when this may in fact be false.

I don't think they are as innocent as you make them out to be. An important question to ask is: Are they purposefully trying to exploit Ayn Rand to make money, or is it an innocent blunder on their part?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They hijacked Ayn Rand's reputation in order to advertise themselves. While it is not as bad as, "this is what AR had in mind", it is still saying that "we are in some undefined way associated or connected with AR and her philosophy", when this may in fact be false.

I don't think they are as innocent as you make them out to be.  An important question to ask is: Are they purposefully trying to exploit Ayn Rand to make money, or is it an innocent blunder on their part?

Not so much to about the link in the post but a slightly similar situation.

Last year I was in a junior design class for mechanical engineering. One of the tasks was to shoot a can as accurately and as far as possible (two separate tasks.) We used somewhat of an odd looking design, we were ridiculed for a out of the ordinary looking project however we had it up and running before any other teams. We won the competition in every aspect, and in the end won the "people's choice award" even receiving votes from very critical people. Our project was named the John Galt. It was named after the line and not the individual, as I had not finished the book before the completion of the project. Granted it wasn’t for money or anything, but we dominated, was that a rip off, or a respectful reference to the book?

-Nate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, when I first came upon this thread and went to their site, my initial response was "cool".  Did I know a single thing about their company? No.  They got a favorable response from me nonetheless.  Did they earn that response?  No.

Yes they did, and you do know something – that they share your values. A tribute only becomes intellectual “hijacking” when it claims to posses particular values of the original. For example, it is fine for a Dot Com to name itself “Rearden Steel,” as one did – but it would be wrong for a steel foundry to name itself that and then name a product “Rearden metal.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they did, and you do know something – that they share your values. A tribute only becomes intellectual “hijacking” when it claims to posses particular values of the original. For example, it is fine for a Dot Com to name itself “Rearden Steel,” as one did – but it would be wrong for a steel foundry to name itself that and then name a product “Rearden metal.”

I disagree with your overall sentiment. The company name was "John Galt Solutions" and indeed they were appropriating a value created by Ayn Rand. Here are some rather clear words from Ayn Rand's (then) attorney, excerpted from an article in the June 1968 issue of The Objectivist, titled "A Statement of Policy."

"Another category of names to be strictly avoided, either for study groups or for undertakings of any kind whatsoever, is the names of Miss Rand's fiction characters (for instance, a designation such as "The John Galt Society"). Miss Rand has asked me to stress this point emphatically. Her fiction characters are Miss Rand's property; they are not in the public domain. In issues of this kind, Miss Rand has the protection of United States statutory and common law copyright."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they did, and you do know something – that they share your values.  A tribute only becomes intellectual “hijacking” when it claims to posses particular values of the original.  For example, it is fine for a Dot Com to name itself “Rearden Steel,” as one did – but it would be wrong for a steel foundry to name itself that and then name a product “Rearden metal.”

I disagree with your overall sentiment. The company name was "John Galt Solutions" and indeed they were appropriating a value created by Ayn Rand. Here are some rather clear words from Ayn Rand's (then) attorney, excerpted from an article in the June 1968 issue of The Objectivist, titled "A Statement of Policy."

"Another category of names to be strictly avoided, either for study groups or for undertakings of any kind whatsoever, is the names of Miss Rand's fiction characters (for instance, a designation such as "The John Galt Society"). Miss Rand has asked me to stress this point emphatically. Her fiction characters are Miss Rand's property; they are not in the public domain. In issues of this kind, Miss Rand has the protection of United States statutory and common law copyright."

But if an organization decides to pay a tribute to Ayn Rand by adopting the name of one of her characters, while at the same time stating that it is not associated with Miss Rand in anyway, would that be wrong too?

They are names after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone specifically copyrights certain names and phrases, having originated them, provided them meaning, and claiming them as his own - then using it in such a manner is a hijack and not a tribute. Eg, Rand and the names of her characters. Until the person makes his wishes known under objective law, such restrictions cannot be assumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone specifically copyrights certain names and phrases, having originated them, provided them meaning, and claiming them as his own - then using it in such a manner is a hijack and not a tribute. Eg, Rand and the names of her characters. Until the person makes his wishes known under objective law, such restrictions cannot be assumed.

But for e.g. John Galt might be the name of one of Ayn Rand's character but it has been the name of some historical characters. Same for Sebastian.

How can a person take a name like Jessie James, copyright it and then demand that nobody use it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning."

Words have meaning.

Names can be associated with a quality if the person is famous, therefore in that sense, they can have a meaning.

But I still can't understand, how can one copyright names or words unless they have been coined by the person himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if an organization decides to pay a tribute to Ayn Rand by adopting the name of one of her characters, while at the same time stating that it is not associated with Miss Rand in anyway, would that be wrong too?

They are names after all.

First, please be much more careful with your attributions. Your full posting makes it appear that I wrote the first paragraph you quoted, when in fact that paragraph was written by GreedyCapitalist and it was his words to which I objected. Misattributions like that are inexcusable, so please make sure you do not do that again.

Second, as to the question you ask, please go back and read the quote I provided from Miss Rand's lawyer. I do not understand why you ask me a question that was already answered by Ayn Rand, via her lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, please be much more careful with your attributions. Your full posting makes it appear that I wrote the first paragraph you quoted, when in fact that paragraph was written by GreedyCapitalist  and it was his words to which I objected. Misattributions like that are inexcusable, so please make sure you do not do that again.

I apologize. I will be more careful in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...