IP is a bargain between state and author. The state agrees to let the author charge rent on their IP for a limited period of time, thus incentivizing the creation of that IP. In return, the public gets to enjoy that IP’s existence - and eventually enjoy it for free.
How long should the limit be? Here lies the debate. The longer the period, the greater the incentive to invest in production of the IP. For example, a movie studio spends $300m+ on a movie because they expect to gain that back via an income stream that lasts for many decades. If their period of protection was only, say, 5 years, their return on investment would be less and thus the investment amount would be less.
So one way to think about the copyright protection length is to ask: do we want to live in a world where investing $300m+ in a movie is a rational thing to do, or would we be content with movies costing no more than $30m, or $3m?
Sure, celebrities are paid too much, but for some variation of this argument you may agree that reduced copyright terms limit the type of movies that can be made.
You can substitute movies for pharmaceuticals if you like - longer patent terms mean a bigger payoff for investing in new medical research. Tweak patent length and you change what drugs exist.
I personally disagree with the patentability of some things (like software), and with the length of copyright, but I also like that movies like, say, Lord of the Rings exist, so it’s not a trivial issue for me. I want a healthy public domain but I also would be sad if the Bakshi LOTR version was all we ever had.
From what ive gathered it is no longer a system that can be used meaningfully by you or me, either to get a useful patent or to enforce an infringed one.
Given that observation, it is natural to expect that anything which can maximize the wealth of the most powerful individuals will be adopted into law (since by definition the most powerful are the ones that can influence law making the most). So you have patent laws, you have propaganda and laws against the threat of global warming, you have propaganda and laws against protections from Covid19 etc.
Coincidentally, capitalism-in-practice abhors competition. "Competition is for losers" as the old adage goes - the winners are the ones who have no competition at all. Corporations will generally go out of their way to avoid competing directly with other corporations, as that is usually perceived as a race to the bottom for profits and prices. It is often preferred to find separate niches or expand the market rather than going for direct competition, unless one corporation feels like they have a good chance of monopolizing a particular market after they start competing.
Free Markets are about competition and consumer rights.
Capitalism - from what I've read - is about a minority having the decision making power with regards to capital allocation.
So the USA has a free market system ran by capitalists. I would argue that IP laws can be favorable from the perspective of Capitalism but not the Free Market.
The capitalists own the patents and have the wealth to _incentivize_ the law makers to make IP protection laws.
Capitalism, as defined by communists is about the "private ownership of the means of production". The term has now been widely adopted, even by its defenders, although we don't care specifically about the means of production, we defend property whenever it enhances the freedom of the human individual (an abstract individual, not any specific person).
Intellectual "property" doesn't enhance freedom in any way. Most libertarians and philosophical defenders of capitalism agree with me on this (except Ayn Rand fans)
I might be lacking some nuance here, but "private ownership of the means of production" sounds equivalent to my statement about making decisions about capital allocation, in that the means of production is one form of capital. Not trying to be pedantic, just looking to understand the difference :)
Very interesting to read about the origins of patents. Not what I expected!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Patent_Statute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi#An_innova...
This was done deliberately in the time when kings could grant patents to anyone they choose.
Unfortunately, this US rule was significantly weakened by the America Invents Act (2011). The AIA, among other things, changed US law to a first-to-file scheme rather than a first-to-invent scheme. This change favors big corps because they tend to file patents early before public disclosure of the inventions.
I think you missed the memo.
Capitalism is about socializing losses, and privatizing profits.
It's about building moats to prevent competition.
It's about lobbying to raise the drawbridge after you won.
That's the reality of US capitalism.
If you want to see a billionaire smile, just say "Capitalism is all about competition." I guarantee it will make his day. You might even get a pat on the head!