Wow. This is what passes for logic? Begging the question?

> As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t.

I don't see what this has to do with the "irony" context, but:

1) Ayn Rand's writings have had their fair share of criticism, with good reason. However, I'm not sure what the circular logic is in that snippet. Could you elaborate?

2) Randian logic aside, multiple people inventing (as opposed to "discovering") the same thing at the same time is so rare, that the USPTO changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file.

> The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t.

This is what the argument is about and shouldn't be the conclusion. The argument isn't about who is first, it's about why that matters.