Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Atlas Shrugged: Why is this so bad?

1484951535458

Posts

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    This does seem like an odd divergence - after all what was the status of restrictive covenants in the 1950s when the book was written in the state that it was set?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade
    This was followed in Broad v Jolyffe[6] and Mitchell v Reynolds[7] where Lord Macclesfield asked, "What does it signify to a tradesman in London what another does in Newcastle?" In times of such slow communications and commerce around the country it seemed axiomatic that a general restraint served no legitimate purpose for one's business and ought to be void. But already in 1880 in Roussillon v Roussillon[8] Lord Justice Fry stated that a restraint unlimited in space need not be void, since the real question was whether it went further than necessary for the promisee's protection. So in the Nordenfelt[9] case Lord Macnaghten ruled that while one could validly promise to "not make guns or ammunition anywhere in the world" it was an unreasonable restraint to "not compete with Maxim in any way." This approach in England was confirmed by the House of Lords in Mason v The Provident Supply and Clothing Co.[10]
    Restricting what Galt did would be very reasonable. Moreover, I don't see why the company wouldn't have the rights to the invention unless the company was very, very stupid. Mechanical genius or no, giving him the money to develop a machine that he could just sell to competition would be stupid.

    all of the "moocher" characters in rand's book are functionally retarded

    it might be to a greater or lesser degree, but it's true across the board

    I always wondered about that, does she ever explain how/why none of the other super genius engineers, once they know about it, don't just steal the plans to the engine and develop it on their own. I mean at least in the real world there's no doubt that someone would simply reverse engineer the engine with designs on being hero of the world, or for some other more selfish reasoning perhaps, and at least on its face, her philosophy seems to encourage that sort of behavior.

    But I suppose we are arguing about an impossible fictional engine that breaks the laws of thermodynamics, I suppose at that point we're no longer operating in the real world anyway, I just find it hard to believe Galt could keep all the super smart people in line.

    I forget, didn't they torture him to get him to tell them how to make it work? And in the process he told them how to torture him more effectively? The implication is that all moochers, by the basis of being moochers, aren't smart enough to do anything original for themselves. They are functionally no better than the people in the future in Idiocracy. They can use the shit, but they don't know how it works or how to fix it when it breaks.

  • DrukDruk Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The conclusion of which is that Galt failed to follow through on what I assume is a fairly standard contract and give his employer their due.

    Except that not all of my arguments were even responded to, such as:
    Druk wrote: »
    You're also assuming Galt's immediate management never knew about the project, which seems unlikely since it was being built right there.
    ronya wrote: »
    it would mean that he was relying on the unusual generosity of his employers to create his world-changing invention.

    Or more likely in an Ayn Rand dystopia, relying on their not-so-unusual stupidity (in the case that we're assuming that it's a stupid thing to do, although the company would still have profited from Galt working there).

    On the non-compete clause issue: Does anyone have any evidence of their claims that these are forced onto all employees in Galt's line of work, anywhere in the industry? I have anecdotal evidence in the form of a friend who is an engineer and never signed anything but a non-disclosure agreement about technical information that pre-dated his employment.

    Another thing to note is that the motor/documentation left at the company was just a small prototype (I think the Dagny character even looked up patents for it, and couldn't find anything). The motor that Galt later built was immensely larger, likely using different parts, and it isn't much of a stretch to assume that after a decade or two of work, very different and more efficient. (If the Sham-Wow and the Super Shammy can both exist in today's industry, then Galt's new motor is clearly fine)

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Restricting what Galt did would be very reasonable. Moreover, I don't see why the company wouldn't have the rights to the invention unless the company was very, very stupid. Mechanical genius or no, giving him the money to develop a machine that he could just sell to competition would be stupid.

    More importantly, the company gets rights to his invention by default unless Galt the then-new-engineer bargained for special conditions. It's not a matter of Galt giving the company the rights; the company gets the rights unless it gives Galt the rights. It is, after all, with its capital that Galt builds any engine.

    With its capital and with its purcahsed time. After all, if the company is not leasing Galt's time, what are they paying him for?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I forget, didn't they torture him to get him to tell them how to make it work? And in the process he told them how to torture him more effectively? The implication is that all moochers, by the basis of being moochers, aren't smart enough to do anything original for themselves. They are functionally no better than the people in the future in Idiocracy. They can use the shit, but they don't know how it works or how to fix it when it breaks.
    But basic contracts aren't something that requires a lot of original thinking. Form contracts for employees are probably easy as hell for the moochers to just copy. Actually negotiating anything would be actually harder. Just tell him to agree to the contract and to take it or leave it. It isn't like the other moocher companies are also going to decide to not be stupid and give a better offer.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Druk wrote: »
    On the non-compete clause issue: Does anyone have any evidence of their claims that these are forced onto all employees in Galt's line of work, anywhere in the industry? I have anecdotal evidence in the form of a friend who is an engineer and never signed anything but a non-disclosure agreement about technical information that pre-dated his employment.

    In the absence of a contract, the engine belongs to the company; if Galt wanted to keep the engine he should have done it in his own time. This is the default; anything different would be unusual.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The former owner knew nothing of the project, nor did Galts coworker. Since the engine is pretty big news(even Dagny recognised it as such), it is a even bigger strech that people would know about it and forget about it.

    What we are talking about are standard terms of employment. Anything you do while it at work is the property of the company you work for. A fairly standard contract for any job anywhere.

    It doesn't matter if the engine Galt built 10 years later is bigger or better. The basis for it is the prototype that Galt designed while working for the company. Its still their property.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    I forget, didn't they torture him to get him to tell them how to make it work? And in the process he told them how to torture him more effectively? The implication is that all moochers, by the basis of being moochers, aren't smart enough to do anything original for themselves. They are functionally no better than the people in the future in Idiocracy. They can use the shit, but they don't know how it works or how to fix it when it breaks.
    But basic contracts aren't something that requires a lot of original thinking. Form contracts for employees are probably easy as hell for the moochers to just copy. Actually negotiating anything would be actually harder. Just tell him to agree to the contract and to take it or leave it. It isn't like the other moocher companies are also going to decide to not be stupid and give a better offer.

    However, we're on this tangent because we're supposed to imagine that Galt is so smart that he wouldn't sign away his invention. Or something. The argument is that we have to believe something not explicitly shown in order to resolve certain...inadequacies in the test. Basically, that Galt was too smart to be fooled by the moochers and therefore must have been able to negotiate a highly favourable contract at the start.

    Basically, you have to assume facts that aren't in evidence. Which doesn't exactly help the case that what Galt did anyway was the right thing to do.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    That still doesn't resolve the 'inadequacies', for it would still mean that Galt had to rely on the moochers to build his engine.

    I still say that Rand simply overlooked the entire point.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    If you're going to create a fictional world to showcase your ideology, at least try to keep it consistent.

    Even Heinlein got that mostly right.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    If Galt's manipulates the moochers to pay for him developing the engine while having a contract that still lets him keep it...

    Then he is still a looter because he took their money and materials for his own ends without giving them anything in return. Classic looter behavior.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    If Galt's manipulates the moochers to pay for him developing the engine while having a contract that still lets him keep it...

    Then he is still a looter because he took their money and materials for his own ends without giving them anything in return. Classic looter behavior.
    But he was awesome enough into manipulating them to give it to him, thus proving himself worthy of it.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    That's what the moochers - politicians - do in AS.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    That's what the moochers - politicians - do in AS.
    But they've been declared evil already. Thus when they do it, it's bad.

    It all makes sense if you look at it objectivistly.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    That still doesn't resolve the 'inadequacies', for it would still mean that Galt had to rely on the moochers to build his engine.

    I still say that Rand simply overlooked the entire point.

    Yeah I think that's the most likely explanation. I mean, Objectivism itself overlooks quite a few things.

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited August 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Prior to the radical changes in the company, I can see Galt agreeing to such a contract. He owns the work of his mind, but that also means he's free to sell the work of his mind...and just starting out in the world, he may have been willing to do so. Especially if that contract also guaranteed him some portion of the profits off the invention as well.

    Just starting out? This is a novel with a person that starts a copper mine by himself by ripping it out of the ground by clenching his butt on the rocks. Captains of Industry don't need employment!

  • DrukDruk Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The former owner knew nothing of the project, nor did Galts coworker. Since the engine is pretty big news(even Dagny recognised it as such), it is a even bigger strech that people would know about it and forget about it.

    The former owner was dead. Leading up to death, I highly doubt he was micromanaging the company. Galt's coworker barely seemed to know who Galt was, so it's safe to assume he worked in a different part of the company. Considering the factory closed down in only 4 years after the new ownership (because everyone basically stopped working, since they were being paid "according to their need"), it's not a stretch at all to think that something could be lost in the process.
    It doesn't matter if the engine Galt built 10 years later is bigger or better. The basis for it is the prototype that Galt designed while working for the company. Its still their property.

    They don't own the idea of motors in general.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Druk wrote: »
    It doesn't matter if the engine Galt built 10 years later is bigger or better. The basis for it is the prototype that Galt designed while working for the company. Its still their property.

    They don't own the idea of motors in general.

    And Huey Lewis doesn't own the idea of music in general. That still doesn't mean he wasn't plagerised. Galt can make a motor on his own, but he can't make a version of that motor without proving that he has the right to do so.

    Is the Wankel engine a universal motor design?

  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Prior to the radical changes in the company, I can see Galt agreeing to such a contract. He owns the work of his mind, but that also means he's free to sell the work of his mind...and just starting out in the world, he may have been willing to do so. Especially if that contract also guaranteed him some portion of the profits off the invention as well.

    Just starting out? This is a novel with a person that starts a copper mine by himself by ripping it out of the ground by clenching his butt on the rocks. Captains of Industry don't need employment!

    the captains of industry do have people doing the schmuck work for them, but see, they're all hyper-competent, logical, soulful philosopher types, too

    the low-class moochers are dumb, crying sheep, and the high-class moochers are barely able to tie their shoes without breaking down in tears and socializing everything

    all of the non-moochers are pretty much glittering gods regardless of class or profession

    dagny at one point encounters a hobo on a train who used to work alongside galt, and they spend a few lovely hours quietly discussing philosophy together

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Christ, if the captains of industry can't even sort out who owns what cornerstone of their future manufacturing empire, how are they going to feed themselves?

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • DrukDruk Registered User
    edited August 2010
    My point was that if something is innovatively different...it's innovatively different. And the 2nd motor was.

    Another point that I'd like to debate is the idea that he had to personally inform someone about the prototype he was working on. Where would he get the time to invent something like that in secret? Plus he left documentation. It's not like he purposely hid anything that he was doing. What contract would not be fulfilled by that?

    Another point is that the people in Galt's Gulch were not potential customers of the company (which didn't even exist by that point anyway). So it's not like he's taking any market value of the motor away from them.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Druk wrote: »
    My point was that if something is innovatively different...it's innovatively different. And the 2nd motor was.

    Another point that I'd like to debate is the idea that he had to personally inform someone about the prototype he was working on. Where would he get the time to invent something like that in secret? Plus he left documentation. It's not like he purposely hid anything that he was doing. What contract would not be fulfilled by that?

    I'd agree. He didn't do anything wrong by not properly assisting them in capitalizing on the motor. He did, however, by proceeding to use the motor for his own profit.

    Another point is that the people in Galt's Gulch were not potential customers of the company (which didn't even exist by that point anyway). So it's not like he's taking any market value of the motor away from them.

    Somebody probably still had the rights to TCMC, at which they'd still have the rights to the motor. And their failure to capitalize on the invention doesn't really diminish their rights to it.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Rust wrote: »
    the low-class moochers are dumb, crying sheep, and the high-class moochers are barely able to tie their shoes without breaking down in tears and socializing everything

    Haha, this amuses me inordinately, if there's one thing we know about the rich, privileged upper classes it's that they really want to provide a social net for their social and economic inferiors.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • DrukDruk Registered User
    edited August 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Somebody probably still had the rights to TCMC, at which they'd still have the rights to the motor. And their failure to capitalize on the invention doesn't really diminish their rights to it.

    I don't know if this is necessarily true. In other areas of property law, intellectual or otherwise, there are principles such as squatter's rights. Lack of use = lack of rights in a lot of cases. In this situation, there was no patent. But in any case, I'm going to back up to the issue of the company owning the idea in the first place.

    Putting aside that the book is fiction, can anyone show evidence that non-compete clauses have been so prevalent in the past 50 years as to make it impossible (or even excessively difficult) for Galt to find a company to work for that would entitle them to any of his inventions?

    And no, just using their resources does not entitle them to exclusive rights to anything invented.
    The general rule is that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, an employer is entitled to a nonexclusive license to use an invention devised by an employee while he or she was working for the employer.
    http://employment.findlaw.com

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Even if we accept that Galt's company had only a nonexclusive right to use his invention, Galt is still in the wrong.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    the low-class moochers are dumb, crying sheep, and the high-class moochers are barely able to tie their shoes without breaking down in tears and socializing everything

    Haha, this amuses me inordinately, if there's one thing we know about the rich, privileged upper classes it's that they really want to provide a social net for their social and economic inferiors.

    I'm still wrapping my head around the implication that they're not intelligent. Are there like no people in this world who are just competent? People who are just sort of smart but not genius?


    Is Atlas Shrugged situated in the same world as Idiocracy?

  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Druk wrote: »
    The former owner was dead. Leading up to death, I highly doubt he was micromanaging the company. Galt's coworker barely seemed to know who Galt was, so it's safe to assume he worked in a different part of the company. Considering the factory closed down in only 4 years after the new ownership (because everyone basically stopped working, since they were being paid "according to their need"), it's not a stretch at all to think that something could be lost in the process.

    This isn't how companies work. Even if the owner of the company isn't micromanaging you, someone else is responsible for making sure that you're actually doing stuff, especially if you're the only engineer in your department, which is the only possible scenario where the free energy machine going unnoticed makes a lick of sense.

  • setrajonassetrajonas Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    the low-class moochers are dumb, crying sheep, and the high-class moochers are barely able to tie their shoes without breaking down in tears and socializing everything

    Haha, this amuses me inordinately, if there's one thing we know about the rich, privileged upper classes it's that they really want to provide a social net for their social and economic inferiors.

    I'm still wrapping my head around the implication that they're not intelligent. Are there like no people in this world who are just competent? People who are just sort of smart but not genius?


    Is Atlas Shrugged situated in the same world as Idiocracy?

    There was the one guy loyal to Dagny that ended up dying abandoned in a desert. Yeaaaaaaaa.

  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    setrajonas wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    the low-class moochers are dumb, crying sheep, and the high-class moochers are barely able to tie their shoes without breaking down in tears and socializing everything

    Haha, this amuses me inordinately, if there's one thing we know about the rich, privileged upper classes it's that they really want to provide a social net for their social and economic inferiors.

    I'm still wrapping my head around the implication that they're not intelligent. Are there like no people in this world who are just competent? People who are just sort of smart but not genius?


    Is Atlas Shrugged situated in the same world as Idiocracy?

    There was the one guy loyal to Dagny that ended up dying abandoned in a desert. Yeaaaaaaaa.

    yeah, he was one of the hyper-competent types and probably the only genuinely kind and likable character in the book, but he committed the mortal sin of not following galt and stayed behind to help as many people as he could

    so he died cold and alone in the middle of the desert

    a lesson is learned but the damage is irreversible

  • infernoviainfernovia Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The book just contradicts itself too much, that is why it is bad.

    And people should stop trying to put Nietzsche's ideas with Rand, its an insult.

  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    infernovia wrote: »
    The book just contradicts itself too much, that is why it is bad.

    And people should stop trying to put Nietzsche's ideas with Rand, its an insult.

    hard not to do that when rand pretty much steals from the man wholesale

    i call it theft because the only philosopher she bothers mentioning in AS is aristotle and his A = A rule

  • infernoviainfernovia Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    hard not to do that when rand pretty much steals from the man wholesale
    Easy to do when Rand can understand fuck-all of what he writes and only borrows a few ideas to validate her political model.

    In retrospect, I would classify Rand as one of the moochers that can take other people's ideas and spam the shit out of it in fantasy, but can't understand it at all.

  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    the low-class moochers are dumb, crying sheep, and the high-class moochers are barely able to tie their shoes without breaking down in tears and socializing everything

    Haha, this amuses me inordinately, if there's one thing we know about the rich, privileged upper classes it's that they really want to provide a social net for their social and economic inferiors.

    I'm still wrapping my head around the implication that they're not intelligent. Are there like no people in this world who are just competent? People who are just sort of smart but not genius?


    Is Atlas Shrugged situated in the same world as Idiocracy?

    Yea, I don't even know where I'd fall. I'm a computer programmer, so I work with my mind, which I guess makes me awesome? But I'm not in the top 1% of programmers or anything, and my programs don't change the world, so I guess I'd be left with the moochers.

    Also, does she take experience into account at all? An awesome dude with one year into a field is probably not going to appear as competent as a mediocre dude with 40 years of experience.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Scooter wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    the low-class moochers are dumb, crying sheep, and the high-class moochers are barely able to tie their shoes without breaking down in tears and socializing everything

    Haha, this amuses me inordinately, if there's one thing we know about the rich, privileged upper classes it's that they really want to provide a social net for their social and economic inferiors.

    I'm still wrapping my head around the implication that they're not intelligent. Are there like no people in this world who are just competent? People who are just sort of smart but not genius?


    Is Atlas Shrugged situated in the same world as Idiocracy?

    Yea, I don't even know where I'd fall. I'm a computer programmer, so I work with my mind, which I guess makes me awesome? But I'm not in the top 1% of programmers or anything, and my programs don't change the world, so I guess I'd be left with the moochers.

    Also, does she take experience into account at all? An awesome dude with one year into a field is probably not going to appear as competent as a mediocre dude with 40 years of experience.

    So... Businesses already operate with Objectivism in mind?

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Druk wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Somebody probably still had the rights to TCMC, at which they'd still have the rights to the motor. And their failure to capitalize on the invention doesn't really diminish their rights to it.

    I don't know if this is necessarily true. In other areas of property law, intellectual or otherwise, there are principles such as squatter's rights. Lack of use = lack of rights in a lot of cases. In this situation, there was no patent. But in any case, I'm going to back up to the issue of the company owning the idea in the first place.

    Putting aside that the book is fiction, can anyone show evidence that non-compete clauses have been so prevalent in the past 50 years as to make it impossible (or even excessively difficult) for Galt to find a company to work for that would entitle them to any of his inventions?

    And no, just using their resources does not entitle them to exclusive rights to anything invented.
    The general rule is that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, an employer is entitled to a nonexclusive license to use an invention devised by an employee while he or she was working for the employer.
    http://employment.findlaw.com

    They didn't have a patent because Galt never told them about the engine. Saying he told the old boss does not count, because he died before doing anything about it. He still has a responability to tell the new bosses before about it. Even if he was quiting the company, one step in that process of quiting is telling people what he was doing, otherwise it comes out as negligence. This makes his squaters rights the result of willfull sabotage.

    As for contracts in the past 50 years? Yes, its usual that the company keeps any inventions their employes make and to have contracts to that effect. Henry Ford used to demand such a contract of his employees. Edison was infamous for doing it. Its been standard proceduer for over a 100 years. By the 1950s it was boilerplate. Same with non-compete clause.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    infernovia wrote: »
    hard not to do that when rand pretty much steals from the man wholesale
    Easy to do when Rand can understand fuck-all of what he writes and only borrows a few ideas to validate her political model.

    In retrospect, I would classify Rand as one of the moochers that can take other people's ideas and spam the shit out of it in fantasy, but can't understand it at all.

    So true, so fucking true.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Druk wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Somebody probably still had the rights to TCMC, at which they'd still have the rights to the motor. And their failure to capitalize on the invention doesn't really diminish their rights to it.

    I don't know if this is necessarily true. In other areas of property law, intellectual or otherwise, there are principles such as squatter's rights. Lack of use = lack of rights in a lot of cases. In this situation, there was no patent. But in any case, I'm going to back up to the issue of the company owning the idea in the first place.

    Putting aside that the book is fiction, can anyone show evidence that non-compete clauses have been so prevalent in the past 50 years as to make it impossible (or even excessively difficult) for Galt to find a company to work for that would entitle them to any of his inventions?

    And no, just using their resources does not entitle them to exclusive rights to anything invented.
    The general rule is that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, an employer is entitled to a nonexclusive license to use an invention devised by an employee while he or she was working for the employer.
    http://employment.findlaw.com

    They didn't have a patent because Galt never told them about the engine. Saying he told the old boss does not count, because he died before doing anything about it. He still has a responability to tell the new bosses before about it. Even if he was quiting the company, one step in that process of quiting is telling people what he was doing, otherwise it comes out as negligence. This makes his squaters rights the result of willfull sabotage.

    As for contracts in the past 50 years? Yes, its usual that the company keeps any inventions their employes make and to have contracts to that effect. Henry Ford used to demand such a contract of his employees. Edison was infamous for doing it. Its been standard proceduer for over a 100 years. By the 1950s it was boilerplate. Same with non-compete clause.

    If you work in the games industry at any level and make any mention of potential ideas at work, it can become actionable. They can't do anything when you're on your own time, but god help you if anything you do yourself ever matches, even by accident, something your employer does.

    Document everything.

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Druk wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Somebody probably still had the rights to TCMC, at which they'd still have the rights to the motor. And their failure to capitalize on the invention doesn't really diminish their rights to it.

    I don't know if this is necessarily true. In other areas of property law, intellectual or otherwise, there are principles such as squatter's rights. Lack of use = lack of rights in a lot of cases. In this situation, there was no patent. But in any case, I'm going to back up to the issue of the company owning the idea in the first place.

    Putting aside that the book is fiction, can anyone show evidence that non-compete clauses have been so prevalent in the past 50 years as to make it impossible (or even excessively difficult) for Galt to find a company to work for that would entitle them to any of his inventions?

    And no, just using their resources does not entitle them to exclusive rights to anything invented.
    The general rule is that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, an employer is entitled to a nonexclusive license to use an invention devised by an employee while he or she was working for the employer.
    http://employment.findlaw.com

    They didn't have a patent because Galt never told them about the engine. Saying he told the old boss does not count, because he died before doing anything about it. He still has a responability to tell the new bosses before about it. Even if he was quiting the company, one step in that process of quiting is telling people what he was doing, otherwise it comes out as negligence. This makes his squaters rights the result of willfull sabotage.

    As for contracts in the past 50 years? Yes, its usual that the company keeps any inventions their employes make and to have contracts to that effect. Henry Ford used to demand such a contract of his employees. Edison was infamous for doing it. Its been standard proceduer for over a 100 years. By the 1950s it was boilerplate. Same with non-compete clause.

    If you work in the games industry at any level and make any mention of potential ideas at work, it can become actionable. They can't do anything when you're on your own time, but god help you if anything you do yourself ever matches, even by accident, something your employer does.

    Document everything.

    The trick with the game industry is that "your own time" is kept to an absolute minimum. :)

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Druk wrote: »
    I don't know if this is necessarily true. In other areas of property law, intellectual or otherwise, there are principles such as squatter's rights. Lack of use = lack of rights in a lot of cases. In this situation, there was no patent. But in any case, I'm going to back up to the issue of the company owning the idea in the first place.

    Putting aside that the book is fiction, can anyone show evidence that non-compete clauses have been so prevalent in the past 50 years as to make it impossible (or even excessively difficult) for Galt to find a company to work for that would entitle them to any of his inventions?

    Druk, I can't tell whether you're seriously defending Rand on this point or simply trying to see how long you can spin out this argument. As a starter, your second and third sentences are (in relation to IP law) incomprehensible.

    When a company hires you to design widgets, if you as an engineer design a widget at your workplace, on the clock, that widget design is going to belong to your company absent some good reason it doesn't. Certainly if you go off and start Druk's Competing Widgets, Inc., your old employer's lawyers are going to have a field day with you. This is not a new concept in IP law at all. The reason is obvious: because otherwise, if I want to invent a new widget, rather than building a widget shop, designing my own widget, etc., I'll go get hired by Acme Widgets and mooch off their products, designs, expertise and tools on THEIR dime, AND get the suckers to pay for it!

    And ironically, the extreme form of this - look what happened to the guy who designed the AK-47 - was a feature of the Soviet state that Rand claimed to hate so much.

    I'm also going with the hypothesis that it simply didn't dawn on Rand to address this issue, because John "Mary Sue" Galt was just too perfect to ever do anything wrong, and if he did, he was doing it to parasites who deserved it anyway.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I guess employment contracts vary substantially in the US as non compete clauses certainly are not boiler plate in the UK now and as such I would doubt they were 50 years ago, when written contracts were far rarer. Generally UK courts look pretty closely at such clauses so they are best drafted with specific knowledge of what it is they are trying to protect.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I don't think that violation of patent law is the greatest and most terrible of Galt's crimes, to be frank.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
This discussion has been closed.