I am still looking for an Objectivist who can point me to the facts that give rise to these concepts.
I know that much of this has already been covered, but since Andrew is asking about it, I’ll give it a shot anyway. The right to intellectual property stems from the following:
Man survives by using his mind. From the simplest needs for food, shelter and clothing to the most advanced life-saving medicine, man must use a process of thought to discover how to produce the things he needs to survive. To remain alive, he must think. Some men may default on this and exist by rote repetition of knowledge discovered by others, but this does not change the fact that unless someone thinks, no one will survive.
Rand identified this fact of man’s nature – that he survives by thinking and producing what he needs – as the source of man’s rights. “If man is to survive, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right for him to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.”
Rights, as identified by Rand, are conditions of existence required for the existence of man qua man – that is, rights are what must be recognized and protected if man is to survive. Thus, man’s right to life means the right to engage in the process of sustaining his life by thinking, producing what he needs and keeping the product of his efforts.
The “product” and the “effort” is not always purely physical. The right to keep the product of one’s effort includes the right to keep the product of the intellectual effort of invention. An invention is the creation of value in the form of a design or device that did not previously exist.
Remember that you cannot patent a discovery, only an invention. (I realize this principle has been infringed lately, I’m talking theory here.) A researcher that discovers a new principle of physics cannot get a patent on that knowledge; he did not create anything, and he cannot demand that the rest of mankind exist in ignorance. However, if he invents a new machine that makes use of that principle, he can (potentially) get a patent, provided he can show that his machine is novel, useful and not anticipated in prior art (that is, not obviously anticipated or predicted by existing knowledge.)
For example, the Wright brothers discovered many new principles of aerodynamics during the research that led up to the construction of the Wright Flyer. They were eventually granted a patent on the airplane device, not on the discovered knowledge that went into its creation.
The concept of their specific flying machine – including all the details of its design and construction – did not exist prior to their efforts. They created it and, therefore, it qualifies as property.
Likewise, if one discovers a new, naturally occurring material, one can claim ownership of that particular piece of it, but not ownership of all of it everywhere it exists. Contrast this with the creation of a new substance, such as Rearden Metal, which potentially could be patented.
Note also that patent law requires that an invention be “reduced to practice”, i.e. it must be shown to actually work. This is why Professor Langley’s Aerodrome, which never flew successfully, could never qualify for a patent.
A patent protects an inventor’s property rights by forbidding unauthorized copying. It does not create a market-wide monopoly. In fact, the opposite is true. A commercially successful, patented item draws competitors, who cannot copy the patented device but who are free to make use of the discovered knowledge that went into the patent.
certain humans own certain other humans. Condition a) is impossible to implement because if every other human has an equal share in my body, I would need the permission of the entire human race to use my body and perform the simplest tasks such as walking, resting, eating, drinking and sleeping. Condition 