[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
Your second unfounded assumption: there are no ways of protecting ideas through voluntary agreements. COPYING is one thing, but patents restrict MORE than copying. Patents restrict INDEPENDENT INVENTION. Copying can be restricted through voluntary agreement, since to COPY something you must SEE it first - and you can set the terms upon which you agree to sell or show something to someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what ways does patent restrict INDEPENDENT INVENTION?

Im not sure if I understand you correctly, so Im gonna ask a question that might seem stupid but your answer will help me understand your position: If Microsoft spend $ 100.000.000 developing a new operating system (lets say Vista), and they sell if for 150$ a piece. Lets assume they have gone above and beyond to make it difficult for people to access the codes written within the program, but I am still able to crack them all. Should I be allowed to copy all the codes, maybe add a few more and then sell my own Vista+ for 50$ without Microsoft being entitled to stop me?

Do you think property rights should not relate to intellectual property?

What are the chances that someone comes up with the same product as myself at approximatly the same time as myself without any interaction?

I believe I should be entitled to government granted exclusive monopoly because that is the only way one can protect my investment.

I find it very hard to understand how you can defend property rights if you do not want to defend intellectual property. People who own land that I do not only does so because they or their anchestors got there before me. Not my fault someone else got their first, I like that land so Im gonna move in there and basically I dont think anyone should be entitled to stop me. What gives you the right to the property you live on?