Objectivism is a set of scientific claims about reality. Scientists study reality—the same reality that is open to everyone—and discover facts about reality that, in principle, every thinking person can verify independently.
Sometimes defenders of the Closed position say things like “because Rand owns Objectivism” or “This is a matter of respecting intellectual property rights” (source: post here). Consider, though, this key quotation from Rand:
“It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge.” (Source: Ayn Rand, “Patents and Copyrights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 130)
Examples: We credit and admire Pythagoras for A2 + B2 = C2 and the same for Kepler’s discovery of the planets’ elliptical orbits, but Pythagoras does not “own” A2 + B2 = C2 and the elliptical orbits (or further statements about them) are not Kepler’s “intellectual property”.
Note carefully here the distinction between art/fiction and science/philosophy: Ayn Rand did create the character Howard Roark and she did invent Galt’s Gulch—so those fictional realities are her intellectual property—but she discovered the fact of measurement-omission and she identified individual rights as social needs, and those are complex facts of reality open to everyone understand and act in accordance with—without her permission.
Implication: In discussing the Open/Closed philosophy issue, be sure to expunge thoroughly all “ownership” and “property” language. Rand’s claim is that she identified a set of facts, not that she owns them. She 100% deserves acknowledgement of her discoveries, and her specific formulations of those factual claims can be copyrighted as intellectual property. Yet the identification of those same facts is open to any mind willing to do so.
(The above is part of a series of elements in the Open/Closed debate. Earlier: the language of “Discovery” and “Identification” vs. “Invention,” “Creation”.)
Related: My formal debate at Ayn Rand Center Europe on Open Objectivism vs. Closed Objectivism: Video. Transcription. Podcast.