[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with patents is that the idea leads to ridiculous scenarios where nothing is done. Imagine if you had to pay a fee to the estate of Og, the inventor of the wheel, every time you wanted to build a device with a wheel. Now multiply that by every innovation in history. Nothing would ever get done. The solution is that patents only last a certain amount of time. But how much time? It's totally arbitrary. Property rights based on things that are totally arbitrary inevitably lead to conflict, which defeats the purpose of property in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I can homestead your garage while you're at work or is there some non-arbitrary length of time land must be un/occupied before it becomes un/owned? How much non-arbitrary amount of labor must I “mix” with land before it’s mine? I think the bolded is the argument of most statists. Everything outside of might makes right is arbitrary. Give might to the state and everyone suffers equally.

[ QUOTE ]
Patents also act to destroy real property rights. If you claim that I cannot use my materials to build a wagon because you "own" the "idea" of the wagon wheel, you have obviously reduced my rights in my own physical property. Destroying rights in tangible property in deference to rights in some completely itagible concept seems incredibly dangerous to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the way patents work at all. If I invent the wagon wheel, you can build one and use it. You cannot however build them and sell it, without my permission, until the patent expires. If the wagon wheel improves something you already sell, you cannot simply add my wheel, and sell them. With copyrights, I think it's called "Fair Use" I can make as many copies of music as I want, I cannot sell them, distribute them or make money for playing them.

[ QUOTE ]
A patent is essentially a legalized monopoly granted by the state. If there is one thing that all economists agree on, it is that monopoly is bad for the consumer. "Idea monopoly" is bad it allows the monopolist to a) "rest on his laurels", i.e. not innovate to stay ahead of the competition, because potential competition is legally barred, b) charge monopoly prices, c) provide poor quality because there is no threat of competition, and d) invest more in patent protection litigation than is invested in innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Idea monopoly is good for commerce because it gives the inventor enough time to become a competitor. If I invent the modem, and ATT simply buys one, and starts producing them en masse with impunity, innovation is being actively discouraged. Can you give an example of a) b) c) d) with any utility patent (outside of pharmaceuticals)? Generally speaking, inventors who are also entrepreneurs are in a frenzy to improve quality, efficiency, and price so they can maintain market share once the patent expires. Those who are not are in a frenzy to license it. Without patent protection ACland will eventually have a small number of large manufacturers who have enough capital to completely discourage anyone from even trying to compete. I find it a bit paradoxical that someone who goes through the effort of coming up with a solution to a problem will "rest on his laurels".

[ QUOTE ]
Even if one were to concede that all else being equal there would be absolutely less innovation in the absence of patents than with them (which I do not concede, there is no possible way to know this a priori because there are competing incentives that point in opposite directions and no way to ascertain which ones would "win" and under what conditions), that still would not justify the existence of patents, because there is no a priori "correct" amount of innovation. We cannot conclude that because there would be more innovation that this somehow justifies the granting of idea monopolies, any more than the idea that subsidizing research increases the amount of research done somehow justifies the subsidy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems a contradiction to me that you can "own" something because you use it, but you don't if you create it. Patent protection is not a shield it's a sword. It gives the small, new guy a weapon to protect his ability to become a competitor from the big established companies. In the modern world, patent protection may seem to restrict competition because high technology patents generally require resources for development only available at large companies, but there are still many opportunities available for "backyard inventors." I'm pretty sure Tesla didn't invent the AC generator to simply to watch Edison or Westinghouse make millions for his troubles.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the idea that entrepreneurs and businesses would simply throw up their hands and not innovate to stay ahead of the competition is, quite frankly, farcical to me. What are they going to do, sit on their capital and not invest it? Not try to turn a profit? Not attempt to beat out the competition? Whatever entrepreneurs and businessmen where that stupid would indeed stop innovating, rapidly go out of business and be replaced by entrepreneurs and innovators who chose not to sit on their hands and bitch that someone else "stole their idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

Companies that don't have to respect prior art would not go out of business, but no new companies would be able to compete at all. Entrepreneur, businessman and inventor are not synonymous (not a slight by any means). Inventors/artists should and must have some protection of their property arbitrary or not, without it AC turns into Anarcho-Oligarchy.

The idea that I don’t have to pay for Windows XP because my free copy doesn’t take away Microsoft’s copy is pretty farcical to me.

IP is broken in our current system; AC without IP is enough to make me a statist (not really I’m still all for individual sovereignty. I never did like the term “anarcho-capitalist” anyway).