Sharing knowledge and advancing technology for everyone is something to be proud of. Society needs to end the practice of hoarding private knowledge.
It's like if everyone was a farmer but everything harvested was immediately taken from the farmer. Why would any farmer put in effort to increase yield when they would not profit from their extra effort?
The farmers needs are more than met under capitalism than under any other economic system people have thought up (to date). That’s why innovation happens more in capitalist societies.
Communism, as a counterpoint, is pinned on selflessness. Think of your brothers and your sisters! Work hard and freely give away your labor, for everyone will give you their labor. Think about the good of the nation! The irony is that this system minimizes innovation and maximizes a cruel society.
Why should a capitalist society, whose individuals act for the good of themselves, have a stronger societial fabric than a communist society, whose individuals act for the good of society?
Who knows, but I certainly am not willing to throw out such a proven system just because it’s raw “selfish” focus at the micro level makes people a little queasy.
Yes, but then they'd keep their innovations secret as trade secrets or they would only innovate when it was cheap and unrisky.
So few steps to go here then; many (by far most) inventors do not have that little detail so they rely on their invention being monetized to give them that. People in open source or charity often just have enough money/time to do that on the side, but most people do not.
Needs basic income or working communism; both do not exist (yet or ever) so how would that work?
I think the solution is potentially a mix of automation providing cheap resources to everyone and government funding for useful research.
No, the idea is to prevent other people from profiting through 'claimed' innovations.
> If all new discoveries were the property of the state/public then there wouldn't be a high incentive to be inventive for any given individual.
Most innovation is not done for money. It's done by people with genuine interest in the subject, often earning less than an average professional in the field. The vast majority of valuable R&D for computer(s/ing) came, and still comes from the public sector.
> It's like if everyone was a farmer but everything harvested was immediately taken from the farmer.
Why is it that intellectual property proponents always try to make analogies using physical property? Copying != moving/deleting. If I was a farmer and along came some poor hungry people that saw me farming, learned from it, then went and farmed their own land, I would have no problem with that.
> Why would any farmer put in effort to increase yield when they would not profit from their extra effort?
If we're talking about innovation, then because it could make farming easier, safer, more enjoyable, healthier, etc.
The US metal producing industry has taken a huge hit and they were the ones to put the R&D money into the production technology.
I'm aware there is a lot of shades of grey around large commercially sensitive ore contract negotiations etc - see Stern Hu case https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-04/stern-hu-explainer-wh...
What would incentive a company to invest millions in new technology, like a new cancer drug, if they have to give up their secrets as soon as they do? No one would bother inventing any at all.
And what about nuclear weapons? Are we supposed to think that it's better if every tin hat despot could just download plans for an ICBM?
Well, the incentives around research are a bit weird. I'm usually all-in on free market capitalism, but I have to admit that historically government sponsorship has a pretty great track record for research.
For your specific question though, the answer could easily be because someone paid them up front to develop a new cancer drug. There is no question that companies that synthesise drugs are incentivised to research new products and deploy them as a stream of new and more effective drugs entering the market will cause it to grow in size and hence increase their profits. It is a question of debate about whether the current American IP system or natural incentives would give a better result overall.
> And what about nuclear weapons? Are we supposed to think that it's better if every tin hat despot could just download plans for an ICBM?
Splitting hairs, but it is debatable if building ICBMs is 'private knowledge' for the grandparent comment. That sort of tech is probably more of a grey-area public-knowledge style. It certainly isn't protected by the IP system, because then someone would be selling ICBMs to tin hat dictators. It isn't used in products that are sold to private entities either (I hope!).
You're likely to want to use anything you have to keep your power, including threatening to use your nukes if anyone tries anything. That threat is only credible if you are actually willing to do it.
So now we would just have a multitude of countries playing brinksmanship, seeing who can act the most reckless to convince everyone else not to mess with them because "I'll really do it, don't test me". Great, that sounds like a really wonderful world to live in.
Hopefully in the future metal 3D printing becomes common and cheap so we will be able to source replacement parts from torrent websites.
Of course, tacit know-how and first-to-market advantages will always exist to some extent. So, in a sense, we can't fully get rid of "IP"-like dynamics. But we can, and should, mitigate them.