Both of you are wrong: patents, patent law, and other forms of state-granted monopoly don’t really have much to do with capitalism at all. They are examples of state intervention in the economy, and if anything, they are more aligned with socialist policies typical of a mixed market. (Although in a ‘true’ socialist country, the monopoly would be granted to the state itself, so arguably patents are not socialist either). Perhaps calling them “statist” would be the most accurate description.
At any rate, I think there are certainly some positives to such legally enforced monopolies. However, there are many glaring problems that you don’t have to look far to find.
The biggest issue for me is the belief that someone is capable of ‘owning’ an idea/thought. I find this to be completely ridiculous and in direct contradiction with free speech, free expression, and actual physical property rights.
I also find the idea that nobody would innovate or create if they couldn’t apply for a state-sponsored monopoly completely laughable. You are using a platform right now that intentionally does not use any of these powers and actually goes as far as to give a free license to anybody to use, modify, copy, and redistribute their design, which they openly publish.
Of course, not all businesses would have to follow this model. In a world free of patents and IP restrictions, businesses and individuals would simply have to take their own information security more seriously, ensuring not to leak sensitive data and using legal tools like NDA’s to protect themselves when seeking funding or collaborating with other businesses, etc.
Once the product goes to market, it’s fair game for others to inspect, copy, and improve on the design. I think this is completely reasonable and the only ethical solution.
The idea that you could be granted a total monopoly, protected by state violence, on any idea, let alone a life-saving medication or an important safety feature, is just bizarre and abhorrent to me.
Both of you are wrong: patents, patent law, and other forms of state-granted monopoly don’t really have much to do with capitalism at all. They are examples of state intervention in the economy, and if anything, they are more aligned with socialist policies typical of a mixed market. (Although in a ‘true’ socialist country, the monopoly would be granted to the state itself, so arguably patents are not socialist either). Perhaps calling them “statist” would be the most accurate description.
At any rate, I think there are certainly some positives to such legally enforced monopolies. However, there are many glaring problems that you don’t have to look far to find.
The biggest issue for me is the belief that someone is capable of ‘owning’ an idea/thought. I find this to be completely ridiculous and in direct contradiction with free speech, free expression, and actual physical property rights.
I also find the idea that nobody would innovate or create if they couldn’t apply for a state-sponsored monopoly completely laughable. You are using a platform right now that intentionally does not use any of these powers and actually goes as far as to give a free license to anybody to use, modify, copy, and redistribute their design, which they openly publish.
Of course, not all businesses would have to follow this model. In a world free of patents and IP restrictions, businesses and individuals would simply have to take their own information security more seriously, ensuring not to leak sensitive data and using legal tools like NDA’s to protect themselves when seeking funding or collaborating with other businesses, etc.
Once the product goes to market, it’s fair game for others to inspect, copy, and improve on the design. I think this is completely reasonable and the only ethical solution.
The idea that you could be granted a total monopoly, protected by state violence, on any idea, let alone a life-saving medication or an important safety feature, is just bizarre and abhorrent to me.