Amy

Amys profile pic May 2014
Amy Peikoff earned her BS in math/applied science and her JD at UCLA, where she served as an editor on the UCLA Law Review. After completing her law degree she went to USC, where she earned her PhD in philosophy. She has taught at Southwestern Law School, Chapman University School of Law, the United States Air Force Academy, University of North Carolina, and University of Texas. She has published academic articles on the right to privacy, Searle’s theory of rational action, and aspects of the novels of Ayn Rand. She has also published several opinion pieces in leading newspapers and has appeared on Fox News, as well as in the documentary, Ayn Rand & The Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged. Her goal in her research is to find areas of the law or philosophy where her Objectivist perspective allows her to make a unique and valuable contribution. She is currently working on a book, Legalizing Privacy: Why and How, which discusses the value of privacy for the virtuous life and the proper means of protecting it.

Book A Speech:

In addition to her experience lecturing at Objectivist conferences, Amy Peikoff has spoken to campus and community groups in several states throughout the United States, as well as Brazil. Speech topics include: Legalizing Privacy: Why and How, Objective Law, and Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights.

Email bookingamypeikoff [at] gmail.com for more information.

22 responses to “Amy

  1. Mike Baraniecki

    Thank you, Amy, for being, for existing in a world fraught with those who would deny man of his freedom to exist as he sees fit. For me, that’s all I want, to be left alone to pursue my own ambitions and dreams. I do not wish ill of any man but I will fight to the death any man who even tries to impose his will on me. Again, thank you.
    -Mike Baraniecki, Murrieta, CA

  2. Howard Roerig

    Hi Amy,
    Just a quick note as a follow-up to the feature you did on Ann Barnhardt:

    http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/11/17/thank-you-ann-barnhardt-we-need-a-lot-more-people-with-her-courage-like-this/

    I find this very disturbing, and a harbinger of all the damage that will come of Corzine & his ilk.

    Howard Roerig
    Denver

  3. Howard Roerig

    Amy,
    For those of us who choose not to expose ourselves on the various social networking sites, there is no obvious way to send you an email from your website. Just a thought–you may also want to post an email address or link.

    Thanks! Appreciate your hard work & strong stomach (I could not read all of today’s news without getting physically ill!)
    Howard

  4. Joseph Dimon

    Toward a Society of Privacy sounds excellent! Very fitting for the times. I was working on a philosophic treatise–Toward a New Diction. My premise was to create a work composed of only words that mean what is good–like baking a cake of only the finest ingredients with no unwanted particles. It became one sentence, ultimately–“I am perfect”–though it took me over a year and numerous ripped-up dictionaries. I hope your work proves to be longer….
    best premises,
    Joseph Dimon

  5. Richard Wills

    Amy, I enjoy your podcasts, but have been unable to find the most recent ones on iTunes. I did find them on BlogTalkRadio, but it took me a while to figure out how to get them from there to my iPhone. Is there any way you could make them available on iTunes as well? I find iTunes much easier to synch. Keep up the good work!
    Richard

    • Richard, thanks for listening to the show, and sorry the transition to the new platform made it harder for you to access the show. This post should help you to set up a new iTunes subscription, using the feed directly from BlogTalk Radio. Let me know if you have any problems.

  6. Richard Wills

    Thanks!

  7. Pingback: Workplace Privacy: An Individual Rights Perspective | Information Privacy Law

  8. jayeldee

    For lack of time, I’ve only heard bits and pieces of your previous podcasts. But I listened to tonight’s (9/2/12), in its entirety—and found it to be entirely refreshing. I have to say, your calm deliberation is practically “therapeutic” (to me)…. (And, by the way, you have an extraordinarily mellifluous voice, if you’ll pardon my saying so. It’s quite like the speaking voices of operatic sopranos, which always seem to exhibit a melodious undercurrent, at least to my ears.)

    My thanks to you.

  9. Christine McNulty

    I am a UK based Objectivist. Amy, “nihilism” is the direct logical consequence following on from NeoDarwinian premises. Evolution is not gene led. You cannot separate Nature and Nurture, except under controlled experimental conditions. Check out the research findings of the ‘Encode’ project, just published, to read about the extent of switching that goes on at the level of cell molecular machinery. Following Rand’s lead, humans have no automatic instincts. I want Objectivists to make the case for conceptual thinking by explaining that we have learnt to switch genes on and off by means of language and therefore have a much more dynamic and energy efficient means of survival than stereotyped, automatic, instinct dependent animals. The received wisdom on evolution has been a gift to religionists of all stripes and has produced the egalitarian trend in politics that is destroying individualism. They key, as Rand identified, is that language is not primarily a means of communication, as is generally accepted; it is primarily a tool of mental organisation. We use it to switch on and off our own genetic processes and thus to integrate our ideas according to our ‘emotionally felt’ values. This is Rand’s “emotional mechanism”.

  10. Amy, I have been saving and retweeting your tweets for a long time now, I am such a HUGE fan of Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. I didn’t realize you had a blog, so great to connect. CHEERS! Coco

  11. Jason

    Amy,

    I just discovered your podcast, and I’m really enjoying it. The only thing that can save this country now is for Atlas to Shrug.

    Regards

  12. Joe

    Amy,

    First of all, great job on the show. It has been part of my week since inception.

    I recently heard mention of a talk you gave in Houston some years agon on the corruption of the American Bar Association. Is the talk available anywhere online?

    Regards,
    Joe

    • Thanks, Joe! In the talk you mention, I criticized some of the ABA’s Model Rules; I didn’t talk about the organization apart from those rules. So far as I know, the talk was not recorded, sorry!

  13. Hi Amy,

    This isn’t really meant to be published, but I thought you should be aware, if you aren’t already, of an interesting antitrust case, which isn’t settled yet, according to the information i see. https://ebooksagsettlements.com/

    The victim this time is publishers for $160+ million. Since you’ve published, maybe you would have an interesting take on this. As a customer, I’m perfectly fine paying what I do for ebooks. The antagonism, which the state attorney general claims exists, is completely fabricated. Don’t they think I notce that the state brought up this case and not the supposed “victims,” which the state is claiming to defend.

  14. Pingback: TAMCON 2014: A photo essay of my TAMily! | Temple of Mut

  15. Edmund Bonczyk.

    Dear DLIGU,

    Possibly good capitalistic jurisprudence…..
    Thank you $. : from web article:

    “Symposium: Supreme Court leaves patent protection for software innovation intact

    David Kappos is a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and the former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He is a senior adviser to the Partnership for American Innovation.

    From the perspective of the parties involved, this week’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision held that a process that lessens settlement risk for trades of financial instruments is too abstract for patenting. However, to the leagues of interested onlookers holding their collective breath across our country and indeed around the world, the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling subtly conveyed a much more significant judgment: software, as a class, is every bit as worthy of patent protection as any other medium in which innovation can be practiced.

    Despite the loud and sometimes shrill calls from various quarters to curtail “software patenting,” the decision is deafening in its declination to do so. The Justices clearly chose not to condemn software to the realm of abstraction, or otherwise express any manner of discrimination against software patents as a class. Instead the Court simply followed its ruling in Bilski v. Kappos: to be patent-eligible, an innovation must be patent-worthy in and of itself – regardless of the language in which it is conveyed. In so doing, the Court maintained fidelity to the purpose of the U.S. patent system – that patentability is awarded based on the merits of the invention at hand, whether the medium in which it is built is a concrete structure, ceramic shape, metallic apparatus, molecular composition or computer language.

    This week’s decision reaffirms that from the point of view of the patent system, software languages are no different from other vernaculars – they are a medium of expression that can be used to capture and convey ideas. The distinction between patentable software in Diamond v. Diehr and unpatentable software in Bilski and CLS Bank is not about software at all; rather, the difference is the presence or absence of a definitive invention versus abstraction. Diehr’s new and useful process for curing rubber was held to be innately patentable – the fact that it happened to be manifest in a software language was tributary.

    Wisely, rather than labor through a lengthy discussion about software, the Court focused on the abstract nature of Alice Corporation’s claimed “invention,” declining to delineate a wooden rule for what constitutes unpatentable abstraction. Revisiting a conundrum that has confronted the Court numerous times in the last fifty years, this decision recognizes that rigid boundaries regarding innovation are simply inappropriate. The goal cannot be to articulate a one-size-fits-all definition precisely separating that which, across the entire reach of human creativity, is worthy of patent protection from that which is not. No one is flattered by one-size-fits-all. Flexibility is invaluable in our patent law precisely because it permits necessary adaptation within a system that must continuously evolve to remain vital at the ever-advancing intersection between ingenuity and the future. Inflexible rules inevitably stifle innovation and pick technology winners and losers in blind bets destined for regret. Today’s rigid decrees cannot possibly account for tomorrow’s as-yet-unknown advances. Thankfully, the Supreme Court showed deep sensitivity to these issues.

    What we can account for today is that the most valuable advancements in technology are increasingly reduced to practice in the language of software. Powering the latest technologies in every field, from business services to automobile manufacturing to chemical production to medicines and medical diagnostics, U.S. software innovation is among our most important economic drivers. The U.S. software market not only has grown well above $150 billion annually, but also has created immense value in all other industries that rely on software — which is to say virtually every industry that exists. Software enables companies across a wide range of industries to create all manner of modern products – from cars to advanced polymers to medicines and medical devices. Companies rely on software to enable their largest endeavors; those that create the most jobs and drive our nation’s economy forward. It is thus not surprising that some U.S. states have made software piracy the basis of their efforts to combat international trade-secret misappropriation using unfair competition laws. Massachusetts’s 2012 watershed action against Thai-based Narong Seafood Company, for example, demonstrates that software use is vital even in Asian fish markets.

    As software has increasingly become a core driver of competitive advantage in every corner of the business world, it is clear that maintaining appropriate incentives and protections for software-based technological advancement is critical to innovation in every sector of the U.S. economy. We are living in the Age of Software, as the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. bears testament.”
    Thank you,
    An Objectivist. $

  16. Interested Reader

    Stumbled on your site. Enjoyed the Freedom App thing. $10. Very funny. By the way…. don’t tell anyone….. you can reboot if you finish your task ahead of time apparently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s