There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do.

There are certainly abuses in the copyright, trademark, and patent systems. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Identifying the abuses and improving the system is the answer.

Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground.

That's not necessarily so - for example, during the industrial revolution, Germany largely overtook the British in mechanical engineering skill during a period where the British had copyright but before the Germans got it: https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/

Also, it's quite possible the causation goes the other way: A society might not succeed at innovation because of IP laws - it's just as possible that because a society has succeeded at innovation, it passes IP legislation, in order to 'kick away the ladder'. But just like regulatory capture shows in general, legislation that helps yesterday's winners seek rent is not necessarily the same (and is often in fact the opposite) of legislation to help tomorrow's winners see the light of day.

That sounds nice and reasonable, in theory.

In practice, all the money is behind expanding the copyright and patent systems. When is the last time the duration of copyright terms was shortened? When is the last time the patent system was adapted to be less draconian and less protective of those poor, poor multinational corporations that somehow end up holding all those patents?

Spoiler alert - that has happened exactly never. Instead, all we get is 'harmonization' which always means extending terms and giving those laws more teeth, to match the strictest law implemented anywhere in the world.

Steamboat Willy's copyright expires January 1st, 2024. How much do you want to bet that Disney will be pushing for another copyright term extension before then?

> Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground.

The current systems only ever get stricter. Where are the much shorter terms? Where is the recognition that cooperation and remixing fosters innovation and progress and as such should be encouraged, not punished? Where is the PTO following the actual law that says math and logic (i.e. software) are not patentable? Etc, etc, etc.

The abuses have been very well documented over the past several decades. There has been zero progress on incremental improvements. Tell me again how you propose we improve the system without a drastic overhaul?

Changing patent length (pc's suggestion) is hardly seems like burning the whole thing to the ground.

In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse, though it typically involves costly legal fees. Fees many cannot justify in spending.

Addressing patent challenges may be a way to protect innovators, both those who should gain reward for their innovations, and those who seek to grain reward by building upon innovations.

That's the key: In the U.S. Good luck stopping someone infringing on your patient in a good number of other countries.

For one, this claim suffers from a correlation/causation issue. But also, do you have an actual citation for research which shows this is true?

[1] http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf

What it does do though is allow someone to start from zero, and catch up to the rest of the competition very fast and cheap. They can then offer their "product" cheaper in order to gain market share. As long as they are getting/keeping customers, there's no need to innovate. You can have a viable business without spending tons of cash on R&D, and if you're making money that way, who cares?

*I am no way endorsing this kind of business model, but it exists and does well.

Comparable examples being ?

I'm not 100% sure about this. Just look at how hard China laughs at intellectual property and copyright in general and tell me if you still think the same.

Not being burdened by expensive license fees is a competitive advantage.

But then again, also not having to care about workers right is...

Unfortunately, most companies require that any patent awarded to an engineer in their employ is automatically assigned to the company.

Get rid of that loophole and employees will be able to license their patents as they see fit. Of course this is fraught with practical difficulties, but some kind of compromise could be reached.

Never happen, obviously.

This needs to vary based on field. Some areas, like drugs, take forever to get to market and have exorbitant development costs to recover. (Though, there, other abuses need to get fixed, like renewing patent lifetime with slightly different applications or formulation.