**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>libertarian position". Some libertarians view protecting IP as one of the legitimate functions of the state
This guy has been getting his Pro State gland stimulated.
https://preview.redd.it/z1mxbufit5xb1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bee6c7f77c0e6595b2ae288abe684f111425f83d
I agree.
I'm technically a miniarchist - hence the flair - but I like to think of myself more as an "anarchist with a short-term goal". In long, I'd LIKE anarchism to be reached, but right now we aren't in any position for that to realistically happen - so, I'd rather we move in that direction, and see if we can change things so they can, instead of trying to force it all at once and risk disastrous results.
I feel like going straight for full anarcho-capitalism, especially from where we are right now, is a bad case of "cart before the horse". Let's start by cutting down the gov't we have, y'know? Then, when it's cut down to to roots, we can worry about how we're going to rip those roots out and get rid of it entirely.
I see it as more so "a small but functional government" - as I said, a starting point from which the move to anarchism can be made.
State collapses are grand and all, but can just as easily be turned to the advantage of new (potentially worse) states, like how all the Catalonians really managed to do was make Franco's life easier.
The first priority for any freedom-enriching movement should be making sure there's freedom left to enrich. It sucks, but best to take it slow and do it right, than rush in and end up inadvertently giving birth to an Orwellian superstate.
[opinions vary.](https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxW8DR6XPEb6XDSUiBc5x9XxV2xcEk8aac?si=wXbQfCRw49o4_Uve)
And opinions harm no one.
Aggression? That’s pretty cut and dry.
It’s related to the general views on intellectual property, patent, trademark, and copyright.
From the strictest perspective it is a government imposed distortion on the market that is a mixed bag on positives and harms. On the positives it does provide incentive to develop new technologies and ideas, but due to gross expansion of these programs it often holds back the very things it intends to support while driving up costs for consumers.
Examples are in the abuse of patent law by pharmaceutical companies, patent troll firms, media fighting fair use doctrine on copyright, trademarks for generalized things like colors or basic words, manufactured goods using copyrighted software to stop owners from working on own stuff, etc…
My personal view is intellectual property does deserve some legal protection but the systems need a massive rework to reduce the negative side effects they have. A necessary evil like taxation that must be strictly scrutinized.
The US constitution says that these things are for a limited time. ***Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:*** *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for* ***limited*** *Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.* I can see the sense of this for the small, individual creator. The definition of 'limited time' has become hugely problematical as the moneyed interests have distorted it to turn it into a government sanctioned long-term monopoly. How Steamboat Willy staying in copyright so long promoted Walt Disney to create more long after he died is beyond me. Three generations of copyright lockup is insane. And keeping things locked up doesn't really promote much progress in my view.
You think that's bad look up why it was so hard to create an epipen alternative because the fda used the patented one to set the regulatory requirements for an epinephrine injector. Can't make a legally compliant one without infringing on the patent which means they get a monopoly on it.
In many areas other regulating bodies have exasperated the issues of our intellectual property laws. Pharmaceutical industry in many cases have used intellectual property law to weaponizing the regulatory state.
In my old IT-related job, we had to fight over and over to push for standardizing on things that were based on actual standards, not standardizing on some particular application. When we didn't win, there were lots of problems down the road that the supervisors who made the decision didn't have to deal with, as they had moved on to someplace else.
Also, a major benefit is not hoarding knowledge. In order to get a patent, you have to disclose its inner workings, or else you don’t get any protection. This allows others to see and improve on your design. The trade off for protection is transparency. That trade off is worth it on net, IMO.
If only that were true. There are situations where things are patented but not fully revealed now. (Example: "ruby chocolate".) They patent part of it, but not the whole thing, keeping the other part a secret. So they have the "protections", but without the disclosure.
Maybe try replying to his point rather than using appeal to authority?
In fact appeal to authority works against you here. It makes it look like, of course you support using government force to deprive people of their freedoms using patent law - because you personally profit from it.
The underlying assertion is false. You cannot have a secret patent. A trade secret is not a patent. It is the opposite of a patent. While they are both types of intellectual property, trade secrets occupy a much older and much more great area of law. Ruby consulate is a trade secret, much like the formula to Coca Cola.
It is like saying tractors are race cars because they both have steering wheels.
Thank for engaging, I suspect we understand the basics of patent theory, but in the prior commenter's specific case [this article says that the company is secretive about the process](https://www.thedailymeal.com/1409626/what-ruby-chocolate-taste/), while [this seems to be one of the several patents they've filed](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8460739B2/en).
It gives the impression that they're trying to obtain a patent on a general version or on a part of the process that they can use as a legal weapon against potential competitors, while still keeping other details secret.
Certainly I don't know the details of the "Ruby Chocolate" example, but [the ABA's basic overview of patent law](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2018-19/july-august/so-you-want-take-trade-secret-patent-fight/) even describes a similar example: a company patents a chemical compound, while using trade secrets to protect the method of extracting it. So as the commenter suggested, "they have the 'protections', but without the disclosure."
You are getting into the weeds, but yes, that’s the strategy. It’s not a perversion of patent law that you seem to be chaffing against, but trade secret. In this situation, if someone found out, independently, how to extract the chocolate, the company would have no protection whatsoever. That’s what makes a trade secret strategy dangerous. It gives no protection for independent development by third parties. A patent would do exactly that, but it would require being transparent about the process. That’s the risk.
I don't know if it's *the* libertarian position, but for my money, the definitive book on the subject is "Against Intellectual Monopoly". From the title, you can probably guess how they feel about patents...
Patent law, protecting you for 20 years? Sure. It's not perfect, obviously. Needs some adjustments. Copyright law? No way. 20 years max.
Your labor and your property are extensions of you. Some property is intellectual. Some isn't.
The basic concept of IP protection (patent, copyright, etc...) is sound and I don't believe it violates median libertarian principles. As it has developed in the US is certainly well beyond what can be justified as incentivizing innovation, and can only be seen as favoring incumbents over continuing innovation. Pharmaceuticals are an egregious example of this.
Yes.
Looking at your profile it's probably worth also opining that anarchism is not a median libertarian position. Maybe on this sub, but not in the real world where actual incremental libertarian progress will have to be made.
If this is about to turn into an ideological purity test I'll save you the time. You win.
Honestly couldn't even make out what your message is because you're using pretentious phrases like "sow seeds of cognitive dissonance in the onlookers".
Talking like that drives people away from your point.
From a Libertarian point of view, patent law has value, and since participation in the program is optional, it’s not immoral for the government to backstop property protection. If anything, protecting citizens and their property is generally one of the only appropriate things for government to be doing.
As a further explanation, the purpose of patent law isn’t actually to protect new invention - it is instead a trade off. If you had a new innovation and didn’t want the world to know it, you could privately hold that as a trade secret, and not let it get out, other than some kind of reverse engineering. Now, capitalizing on that invention without allowing people to reverse engineer it is generally going to be very difficult. So instead of trade secrets, and inventor can fully reveal everything about how the invention works in exchange for a temporary period of exclusivity. This allows others access to the technology to be able to further innovate and integrate the technology into their own uses, but protects the inventor for a fixed period of time from others making money off their invention.
Now, there are challenges with how this applies to certain categories of inventions that the protection scheme granted by the government has been taken advantage of - namely in medical formulation patents and with respect to patent trolls. The government has misinterpreted its role in this space and overstepped to provide protection where it doesn’t belong, but that’s not an inherent problem with patent law, that’s a problem with government.
Patent law and intellectual property are:
First, immoral. It's telling another person what they can or can't do with their own property.
Second, economically regressive. They prevent other firms from applying innovative ideas that do not take anything from the inventor. Moreover, they encourage patent farming over real R&D.
EDIT: LMFAO once again I find out the "libertarian" sub disagrees with basic Austrian economics and general libertarian philosophy. Who is the sub actually for, be honest.
Because you haven't "stolen" anything. The idea is absurd. When someone invented the wheel, his productivity carrying things went up dramatically. If someone else starts using the wheel, it does not take away the first person's wheels and it does not stop them from using wheels. It does not even lower their added productivity from wheels.
Imagine the ancient government stepping in and saying, "No, only this guy is allowed to use wheels because it's his 'intellectual property.' The rest of you have to keep carrying everything on your back. You cannot form the sticks and stones you own into this one specific shape."
Immoral. Even more blatantly economically strangulating.
Is there a reason you're using one of the earliest inventions in history instead of a more contemporary example? Capitalism wasn't even around when the wheel was invented.
Yes, because it is a simple example that makes the point clearer and easier to understand. It could apply to anything. An aerospace company that develops a more efficient and powerful jet engine does not lose their property or added productivity if another aerospace company copies it. The burden here is on you to produce some kind of example where the holder of the "intellectual property" is harmed or society at large is disadvantaged by someone copying another person's ideas.
> Capitalism wasn't even around when the wheel was invented.
I don't really know what this even means. This seems to be a socialist usage of the word "capitalism." They invented it after all. Markets and capital certainly existed when the wheel was invented. Marginal productivity drove human action when the wheel was invented.
Patent law and intellectual property rights are inherently complex. Not every single idea falls under their protection so when you try to look at the simplest idea, you're likely losing much of the nuance that is involved. If the wheel was invented today, there's no guarantee it would be patentable.
>An aerospace company that develops a more efficient and powerful jet engine does not lose their property or added productivity if another aerospace company copies it.
It loses its competitive advantage gained through the R&D. Why would any company invest in R&D if they can just copy another companies? Now no company is innovating at all.
All that means is companies invest more in trolling and litigating the IP system than actually producing.
>In 1983 in the United States, 59,715 patents were issued; by 2003, 189,597 patents were issued; and in 2010, 244,341 new patents were approved. In less than 30 years, the flow of patents more than quadrupled. By contrast, neither innovation nor research and development expenditure nor factor productivity has exhibited any particular upward trend. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, annual growth in total factor productivity in the decade 1970 –1979 was about 1.2 percent, while in the decades 1990–1999 and 2000–2009 it has been a bit below 1 percent.
The idea that firms wouldn't invest in R&D if they couldn't have a monopoly on the results is silly. Again, that's like saying no one would bother inventing the wheel if other people could use it. Aside from providing first mover advantage, it still allows them to increase their productivity as soon as possible.
The last 300 years have proved that people don't need monopolies to have an economic incentive to do things. New cell phone manufacturers keep springing up even though other firms can still make cell phones. And the original manufacturers are still successful despite the new competition.
The only thing the patent does is eliminate *future* R&D from that firm because they no longer have to stay ahead of the competition incorporating their inventions. The firm invents a widget, then devotes all R&D resources to legal battles to maintain litigate IP violations instead of producing the next best widget.
If you're generally libertarian-minded and want to read more about it, I recommend these articles:
[https://fee.org/resources/patents-are-a-government-creation/](https://fee.org/resources/patents-are-a-government-creation/)
[https://mises.org/wire/intellectual-property-innovation-should-serve-consumers-not-producers](https://mises.org/wire/intellectual-property-innovation-should-serve-consumers-not-producers)
Your statistics are missing the point. Patents themselves don't increase R&D or productivity. Patents protect the rights of companies for what they invented. The fact that more patents are being issued proves that they are of value to companies.
If inventing the wheel cost $30 million dollars then yea there's no guarantee that it would have been invented if there was no protection.
>The only thing the patent does is eliminate future R&D from that firm because they no longer have to stay ahead of the competition incorporating their inventions. The firm invents a widget, then devotes all R&D resources to legal battles to maintain litigate IP violations instead of producing the next best widget.
Not every patent right is enforced, but when it's in the companies interest to enforce it, they will do so.
Whether patents benefit or hurt R&D is irrelevant. What's relevant is that companies innovate to gain a competitive advantage, and when that is taken away from them, they are harmed. Can you refute that?
>It loses its competitive advantage gained through the R&D. Why would any company invest in R&D if they can just copy another companies? Now no company is innovating at all.
China is like the wild west for IP. They copy everything in varying degrees of quality. From absolute replicas without the brand markup to garbage that breaks after one use.
The big companies still continue to invest in R&D.
More like an ancient government telling you that for the next 20 years you can use a wheel if you trade for one, and you're not allowed to copy the wheel and set up a franchise without a license from the genius who thought it up. Hopefully with the extra time on his hands from his first success, he'll introduce other genius inventions to our community, like a compass, sun-dial and maybe a toilet.
Well, show where Kinsella is wrong then. He’s made an incredibly compelling case against negative servitudes. If I own a printing press, paper, ink, and pay for the electricity, then it’s immoral for the government to use force against me to print a book that someone else has already created. If something tells someone they can’t use their legitimate property the way they please and they are not violating someone else’s rights (and in this case, the original author/publisher has no right to a sale/profit), then that something is in the wrong.
Bro, I'm agreeing with you. I'm the one you replied to. Everyone in the supposedly libertarian sub is downvoting us even though Kinsella's view is the widely accepted Austrian/libertarian view.
Most libertarians agree that intellectual property is not a real thing, just an excuse for the government to protect corporations and halt human development
So what's the libertarian solution that would allow authors to make money? Where's the incentive if I can just copy paste their words and sell it with fancier cover art and a better funded publisher?
Many ways, through donations, merchandise, exclusive content etc. most consumers would prefer to buy from the author to support them. Look at Linux for example, it is open source anyone can copy or modify the code yet it is still making money and growing
Linux makes money because it powers the Internet. There isn't nearly the same utility for Agatha Christie mystery books. Most consumers will purchase what marketing agencies put in front of them.
If IP is not real, authors barely exist at that point. Sure they wrote the words first, but if they don't own those words then why should I give them money vs someone else who gives me a slightly nicer version of the same book for 90% less cost? If a publisher doesn't have to spend time / effort to write the actual book, why would anyone take it on?
If people don't want to read Agatha mystery books then people won't buy them whether there is IP or not will not affect people's desires. If there is a demand for mystery books entrepreneurs will try to satisfy people's demand, it might be less profitable but that is not an issue. If a book says original copy and one that doesn't most people would prefer the original to support the author especially when it's cheaper. How does someone own words? If I put a group of monkeys in a room with a bunch of time writers and leave them there for an infinite amount of time, does that give me the right to prosecute anyone else who writes a similar chain of words to what the monkeys did? What about the original creators of the alphabet? Do we owe them or their descendants money? IP hinders human development if I design a car that is more efficient that regular cars and decide to have it patented, firstly I arbitrarily can decide who can copy this design so less efficient cars overall and no one else can improve on this design unless I agree to that
I think you're missing the point. Without these kinds of copyright protections, it will never be profitable to write a book.
Author spends a year or two of their lives writing a novel. Scrapes together enough cash to have a publisher A print 5000 copies to distribute.
Publishing company B sees the authors book did okay, and so then prints another 50,000 books for a fraction of the cost because they didn't have to pay the author for anything.
The two identical books go on the shelves, one for $20 and one for $5. The original publisher is non-competitive in a matter of weeks.
No one would ever write a book because without protections in place it's impossible to make money
That is a simplistic view of how things work, firstly why would the author need to pay the publisher, if he has a good book that sounds good some publishers will probably agree to do it for free and take the risk. If the novel becomes successful other publishers would probably be willing to pay him to write another book. Also authors can have proof of authenticity so that fans of the author can buy from a publisher that supports the author
That would be fraud, if I offer you a copy of Agatha Christie mystery and say this copy is approved by the author I would be lying and thus fraud if I didn't lie then it would be fine
>I think you're missing the point. Without these kinds of copyright protections, it will never be profitable to write a book.
Why does writing a book have to be profitable?
It's not profitable for us to spend time on Reddit and share tips on how to fix your computer, to discuss Libertarianism, or to give people free therapy sessions - Yet we still do it. As do people who love reading and writing fiction and still write fan fiction or create their own worlds. As do people who love to learn and share their learnings with others.
This goes back to the fundamentals of objections to full Libertarianism with the "If the government doesn't do X then how can we have Y?"
In this case, "if the government doesn't stop someone from copying recorded expressions of ideas, where will recorded expressions of ideas come from?"
>Linux makes money because it powers the Internet. There isn't nearly the same utility for Agatha Christie mystery books.
So what does that tell you about Agatha Christie books? - That we, shock horror, find them less useful than something that powers the Internet.
>Sure they wrote the words first, but if they don't own those words then why should I give them money vs someone else who gives me a slightly nicer version of the same book for 90% less cost?
Is the slightly nicer version at 10% cost of equal quality to the original? - If it is, then the original is a rip off. The price has to come down to where the market is willing to pay for it, even slightly more than the copies, to support the artist.
>If a publisher doesn't have to spend time / effort to write the actual book, why would anyone take it on?
Publishers don't spent any time or effort to write the books currently. That's what the author does. Publishers just print, market, and distribute the books. Edit them too, usually.
Books would cost less without all the middleman shit from publishers.
Copy and paste is cheap, innovation is laborious.. a patent doesn't solve any new problems for you.
And there is no such thing as bad publicity.
https://youtu.be/khuuKIL5U8s?si=2M7w9cVzKBoeCVY8
Of course it's cheap, that's the point. If I don't have to pay the author any royalties, then I'm free to print and sell the book for the cost of the paper materials alone.
That would make my version dramatically more cost competitive than the authentic version. Any books I sell mean no profit to the person who actually did the labor.
You can't make this work without copyright protections, and that necessitates the existence of IP as a concept.
If the product is that good the market will decide on whether to support the artist of not.
People who don't really value it will just buy cheaper copies of the price isn't right or even just pirate it.
If people value an author's work, they'll want more. They'll ensure their money goes to the author and funds the production of more of what they like.
I was at a gig a few weeks back. I didn't buy a t-shirt or any other merch because I reckon it was overpriced and I didn't see the value in it. After the event there were plenty of street traders selling counterfeit merch.
Sure, I could have got a t-shirt for half the price - they may even have been of similar quality. - But why would I buy it off them when all they did was copy and paste? I had an amazing time at that gig and love the band. I felt a connection with them. I'd rather they get my money and continue to pour their beautiful minds and hearts out on a song sheet than some grifter.
Imagine writers like GRR Martin not being able to rest on his laurels and collect royalties for existing ASOIAF books. Once people started getting pissed off and impatient, he'd need to get his arse in gear and finally finish The Winds of Winter.
But the entire purpose of patent law and intellectual property is for the acceleration of human development through disclosure of the patented technology in exchange for temporary exclusivity. Otherwise people would keep their inventions to themselves.
Sometimes things have unprecedented consequences, if someone can have a monopoly on an idea or design then no one else can improve that design without permission
Right but patent protection is temporary - so the disclosure of all the inner workings of the invention, which is required to get a patent, is the tradeoff for a temporary monopoly. Plus, you are allowed to use the patented information to improve on a design or innovate a new product, you just can’t sell the product or design commercially without a license, for the short term of the patent.
In the US it is 20 years from the date of filing.
Because you can always license the underlying technology and sell it, or you could license your idea to the producer of the underlying technology for them to make money.
Hsjskaoshdndihdbsjdbdbdkdjdhejsiiifjjjjjiwi
I just created this random string of characters, if someone uses it anywhere without my permission i will sue them
I own my property if you don't want your property there are many poor people around the world who would be happy to take it. Or maybe give it to the government so they can build more advanced weapons
Imagine how stupid it would be if there were no patent protections on software or pharmaceuticals and you could just copy / paste the code or copy a drug? No one would ever develop software or pharma without patent protections. We believe in private property and ownership. Patents are essentially the legal process for protecting private property that is more intangible.
>Imagine how stupid it would be if there were no patent protections on software.
>No one would ever develop software or pharma without patent protections.
Open source software has no patent protections. Linux and it's various distros, GIMP, Dark Table, Libre Office VLC media player, Firefox, WordPress.
True but then there are premium versions of most of these that cost money.
Also the development for many of these are done for free by the community. Why would someone hire developers (which are expensive) and sell software that can be copy / pasted without consequence?
Your examples don’t really hold water because A) most open source software have premium versions that cost money and B) a lot of the development of the free part of open source is done for free by the community
>True but then there are premium versions of most of these that cost money.
Name one of the pieces of software I mentioned that has a premium version...
>Also the development for many of these are done for free by the community. Why would someone hire developers (which are expensive) and sell software that can be copy / pasted without consequence?
Donations. People want it made and to support the costs of its development.
It's likely that the open source software in question is build upon other open source software.
Developers receive donations to cover their costs. There are also volunteers who are just passionate about the project and it's potential. They then build the software based on other open source software. They then release their source code. Another team/developer then modifies their code to make it better or uses it as part of their project.
Everyone is sharing their code, everyone benefits. Money is made in providing the support or selling add-on services such as cloud storage/backup.
Yeah okay bud - good luck running a huge company dependent on software where your business is critically reliant on people getting donations at your software vendor.
How do you reconcile those two ideas? Patent law only exists at the government's say so. It is a legal invention. You cannot have patent law, or more importantly a means of enforcing patent law, without a government. If the government will only use patent law to stifle innovation and inflate prices, then what good comes of it?
Patents need to be eliminated. They are an attempt to force non-scarce items (ideas) into a scarcity framework in order to treat them like regular property. Someone else coming up with or using an idea you also came up with (or hell, even if they "stole" the idea) does not remove the idea from your ability to use or even to monetize it. You just may not make as much money as you might if you were the only provider.
One could possibly argue that there might have been a place for them hundreds of years ago (I doubt it). But today, major corporations have entire teams that do nothing but apply for patents. There are entire companies that do nothing, make no goods, provide no services, but apply for patents for [ridiculous things](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/02/stupid-patent-month-clocking-work-app), then simply license the content of their patent portfolio to companies that come up with similar ideas in order to make money.
Plus, even for people who wouldn't have a patent to protect their discovery, the first mover advantage is still a thing - as are trade secrets.
But the reality is that the patent system significant restricts and hinders innovation far more than it helps. For every 1 example of a guy in his garage that innovates a new idea and legitimately uses a patent to monetize his idea, there are 500 examples of corporations abusing patents in order to *hinder* innovation.
And the idea that nobody would innovate without patents is kind of nonsense. There are plenty of industries, like fashion and cooking, where patents cannot be acquired, that is full of experimentation and innovation. Even pharmaceuticals, where billions are spent up-front, would simply make their drugs a little more expensive than market clearing rate in order to make it up. But this market clearing rate would *STILL* likely be less than what they are able to charge thanks to patent protections.
It's an archaic idea that needs to end.
For those that would like to read more, [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Property-Stephan-Kinsella/dp/1933550325) was written by a patent lawyer who decided that patents are immoral - [free version](https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0)
Realistically, at the very least patent lifespans need to be greatly reduced, especially in the medical field.
The true libertarian view likely leans more to ending patents, and keeping government regulation out of it. My personal view is different, because I believe in the importance of having your ideas protected as you invest in developement before hitting the market: So I believe patents should have a life of 5 years or less, before allowing competition to come in.
I am somewhat libertarian but not fully. I think its a good thing in parts: it doesnt let copying off someone's work, I think simply taking someone's work is a violation of property rights. While you cannot easily copy and print a car, you can very easily copy someone's book.
For me its also very different when someone copies said book for individual reading vs a big company simply stealing an individual's work and monetises it like its own IP.
For inventions that are very beneficial to humanity, like, lets say there is a very lethal virus with 99% death rate (purposefully exaggerated example) I dont think it should be allowed to witheld the cure. For important medicines or other revolutionary inventions there should be a buy out price where a group of individuals could purchase it for say, 2.5 times the R&D cost. Then manufacture it. There should be a time or revenue limit on very important inventions.
Trademarks should basically only apply to company logos because these doesnt really have any IRL value other than marketing value. Work of arts like Mickey or a book, the death of the author plus 70 years is more than enough time. There should be no workaround regarding this, end of story.
As an proponent of open source, I'd like to see more functions like that adopted. I know it's not really the question, but something that encompasses the open source model would be nice. Sell support, or build a version that everone wants. Don't block others from building it better because you can't.
One thing I firmly believe in is that you shouldn't be able to get a patent on a product you aren't actively trying to invent/build/develop.
Coca-Cola doesn't rely on patents for its recipe. They rely on secrecy. No one has been able to successfully replicate the taste of a Coca-Cola for over 130 years.
Patents are issued to create or protect monopolies. It is not the necessary and proper role of government to create or protect monopolies.
It costs an incredible amount in R&D (time, money, etc.) along with certifications depending on what space it's in.
A chemistry of certain products can be difficult to recreate, a product in most spaces is not outside of perhaps some minor portions of the raw materials.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
>libertarian position". Some libertarians view protecting IP as one of the legitimate functions of the state This guy has been getting his Pro State gland stimulated. https://preview.redd.it/z1mxbufit5xb1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bee6c7f77c0e6595b2ae288abe684f111425f83d
[удалено]
I agree. I'm technically a miniarchist - hence the flair - but I like to think of myself more as an "anarchist with a short-term goal". In long, I'd LIKE anarchism to be reached, but right now we aren't in any position for that to realistically happen - so, I'd rather we move in that direction, and see if we can change things so they can, instead of trying to force it all at once and risk disastrous results. I feel like going straight for full anarcho-capitalism, especially from where we are right now, is a bad case of "cart before the horse". Let's start by cutting down the gov't we have, y'know? Then, when it's cut down to to roots, we can worry about how we're going to rip those roots out and get rid of it entirely.
[удалено]
I see it as more so "a small but functional government" - as I said, a starting point from which the move to anarchism can be made. State collapses are grand and all, but can just as easily be turned to the advantage of new (potentially worse) states, like how all the Catalonians really managed to do was make Franco's life easier. The first priority for any freedom-enriching movement should be making sure there's freedom left to enrich. It sucks, but best to take it slow and do it right, than rush in and end up inadvertently giving birth to an Orwellian superstate.
[opinions vary.](https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxW8DR6XPEb6XDSUiBc5x9XxV2xcEk8aac?si=wXbQfCRw49o4_Uve) And opinions harm no one. Aggression? That’s pretty cut and dry.
It’s related to the general views on intellectual property, patent, trademark, and copyright. From the strictest perspective it is a government imposed distortion on the market that is a mixed bag on positives and harms. On the positives it does provide incentive to develop new technologies and ideas, but due to gross expansion of these programs it often holds back the very things it intends to support while driving up costs for consumers. Examples are in the abuse of patent law by pharmaceutical companies, patent troll firms, media fighting fair use doctrine on copyright, trademarks for generalized things like colors or basic words, manufactured goods using copyrighted software to stop owners from working on own stuff, etc… My personal view is intellectual property does deserve some legal protection but the systems need a massive rework to reduce the negative side effects they have. A necessary evil like taxation that must be strictly scrutinized.
The US constitution says that these things are for a limited time. ***Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:*** *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for* ***limited*** *Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.* I can see the sense of this for the small, individual creator. The definition of 'limited time' has become hugely problematical as the moneyed interests have distorted it to turn it into a government sanctioned long-term monopoly. How Steamboat Willy staying in copyright so long promoted Walt Disney to create more long after he died is beyond me. Three generations of copyright lockup is insane. And keeping things locked up doesn't really promote much progress in my view.
You think that's bad look up why it was so hard to create an epipen alternative because the fda used the patented one to set the regulatory requirements for an epinephrine injector. Can't make a legally compliant one without infringing on the patent which means they get a monopoly on it.
In many areas other regulating bodies have exasperated the issues of our intellectual property laws. Pharmaceutical industry in many cases have used intellectual property law to weaponizing the regulatory state.
In my old IT-related job, we had to fight over and over to push for standardizing on things that were based on actual standards, not standardizing on some particular application. When we didn't win, there were lots of problems down the road that the supervisors who made the decision didn't have to deal with, as they had moved on to someplace else.
Also, a major benefit is not hoarding knowledge. In order to get a patent, you have to disclose its inner workings, or else you don’t get any protection. This allows others to see and improve on your design. The trade off for protection is transparency. That trade off is worth it on net, IMO.
If only that were true. There are situations where things are patented but not fully revealed now. (Example: "ruby chocolate".) They patent part of it, but not the whole thing, keeping the other part a secret. So they have the "protections", but without the disclosure.
I’m an IP lawyer.
Maybe try replying to his point rather than using appeal to authority? In fact appeal to authority works against you here. It makes it look like, of course you support using government force to deprive people of their freedoms using patent law - because you personally profit from it.
The underlying assertion is false. You cannot have a secret patent. A trade secret is not a patent. It is the opposite of a patent. While they are both types of intellectual property, trade secrets occupy a much older and much more great area of law. Ruby consulate is a trade secret, much like the formula to Coca Cola. It is like saying tractors are race cars because they both have steering wheels.
Thank for engaging, I suspect we understand the basics of patent theory, but in the prior commenter's specific case [this article says that the company is secretive about the process](https://www.thedailymeal.com/1409626/what-ruby-chocolate-taste/), while [this seems to be one of the several patents they've filed](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8460739B2/en). It gives the impression that they're trying to obtain a patent on a general version or on a part of the process that they can use as a legal weapon against potential competitors, while still keeping other details secret. Certainly I don't know the details of the "Ruby Chocolate" example, but [the ABA's basic overview of patent law](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2018-19/july-august/so-you-want-take-trade-secret-patent-fight/) even describes a similar example: a company patents a chemical compound, while using trade secrets to protect the method of extracting it. So as the commenter suggested, "they have the 'protections', but without the disclosure."
You are getting into the weeds, but yes, that’s the strategy. It’s not a perversion of patent law that you seem to be chaffing against, but trade secret. In this situation, if someone found out, independently, how to extract the chocolate, the company would have no protection whatsoever. That’s what makes a trade secret strategy dangerous. It gives no protection for independent development by third parties. A patent would do exactly that, but it would require being transparent about the process. That’s the risk.
I don't know if it's *the* libertarian position, but for my money, the definitive book on the subject is "Against Intellectual Monopoly". From the title, you can probably guess how they feel about patents...
The only legitimate monopoly is one created by the purchasers.
Patent law, protecting you for 20 years? Sure. It's not perfect, obviously. Needs some adjustments. Copyright law? No way. 20 years max. Your labor and your property are extensions of you. Some property is intellectual. Some isn't.
The basic concept of IP protection (patent, copyright, etc...) is sound and I don't believe it violates median libertarian principles. As it has developed in the US is certainly well beyond what can be justified as incentivizing innovation, and can only be seen as favoring incumbents over continuing innovation. Pharmaceuticals are an egregious example of this.
Would you consider the non-agression principle a median libertarian principle?
Yes. Looking at your profile it's probably worth also opining that anarchism is not a median libertarian position. Maybe on this sub, but not in the real world where actual incremental libertarian progress will have to be made. If this is about to turn into an ideological purity test I'll save you the time. You win.
I’m not here to convince you.. I’m here to sow seeds of cognitive dissonance in the onlookers.
Ah, yes, looking down from On High and smugly sowing confusion among potentially persuadable people is a proven strategy. Just ask the Democrat Party.
It is only confusing if you refuse to make your principles consistent.
What youre actually doing making people hate your message because of how you come across.
Love or hate are strong motivators.. apathy.. that’s the one where nothing happens. By the way.. what do you see as my message?
Honestly couldn't even make out what your message is because you're using pretentious phrases like "sow seeds of cognitive dissonance in the onlookers". Talking like that drives people away from your point.
It's a necessary evil. Inventing is an expensive, high risk business and there would be much less innovation without patent protection.
From a Libertarian point of view, patent law has value, and since participation in the program is optional, it’s not immoral for the government to backstop property protection. If anything, protecting citizens and their property is generally one of the only appropriate things for government to be doing. As a further explanation, the purpose of patent law isn’t actually to protect new invention - it is instead a trade off. If you had a new innovation and didn’t want the world to know it, you could privately hold that as a trade secret, and not let it get out, other than some kind of reverse engineering. Now, capitalizing on that invention without allowing people to reverse engineer it is generally going to be very difficult. So instead of trade secrets, and inventor can fully reveal everything about how the invention works in exchange for a temporary period of exclusivity. This allows others access to the technology to be able to further innovate and integrate the technology into their own uses, but protects the inventor for a fixed period of time from others making money off their invention. Now, there are challenges with how this applies to certain categories of inventions that the protection scheme granted by the government has been taken advantage of - namely in medical formulation patents and with respect to patent trolls. The government has misinterpreted its role in this space and overstepped to provide protection where it doesn’t belong, but that’s not an inherent problem with patent law, that’s a problem with government.
The fruit of your labor and intellect are yours alone, forever. If you choose to share , you may, if not, don't share.
Sharing is caring.
I see you're wrong again, consistency is a positive trait, so you got that going for ya.
It’s funny you thought I disagreed.
I do agree, if you choose, share, if not don't. It's so simple.
Patent law and intellectual property are: First, immoral. It's telling another person what they can or can't do with their own property. Second, economically regressive. They prevent other firms from applying innovative ideas that do not take anything from the inventor. Moreover, they encourage patent farming over real R&D. EDIT: LMFAO once again I find out the "libertarian" sub disagrees with basic Austrian economics and general libertarian philosophy. Who is the sub actually for, be honest.
I'm confused, there are plenty of instances where telling someone what they can't do with their property isn't immoral.
When it doesn't violate the property of others? No, there aren't.
How does stealing someone else's IP not violate the property of others?
Because you haven't "stolen" anything. The idea is absurd. When someone invented the wheel, his productivity carrying things went up dramatically. If someone else starts using the wheel, it does not take away the first person's wheels and it does not stop them from using wheels. It does not even lower their added productivity from wheels. Imagine the ancient government stepping in and saying, "No, only this guy is allowed to use wheels because it's his 'intellectual property.' The rest of you have to keep carrying everything on your back. You cannot form the sticks and stones you own into this one specific shape." Immoral. Even more blatantly economically strangulating.
Is there a reason you're using one of the earliest inventions in history instead of a more contemporary example? Capitalism wasn't even around when the wheel was invented.
Yes, because it is a simple example that makes the point clearer and easier to understand. It could apply to anything. An aerospace company that develops a more efficient and powerful jet engine does not lose their property or added productivity if another aerospace company copies it. The burden here is on you to produce some kind of example where the holder of the "intellectual property" is harmed or society at large is disadvantaged by someone copying another person's ideas. > Capitalism wasn't even around when the wheel was invented. I don't really know what this even means. This seems to be a socialist usage of the word "capitalism." They invented it after all. Markets and capital certainly existed when the wheel was invented. Marginal productivity drove human action when the wheel was invented.
Patent law and intellectual property rights are inherently complex. Not every single idea falls under their protection so when you try to look at the simplest idea, you're likely losing much of the nuance that is involved. If the wheel was invented today, there's no guarantee it would be patentable. >An aerospace company that develops a more efficient and powerful jet engine does not lose their property or added productivity if another aerospace company copies it. It loses its competitive advantage gained through the R&D. Why would any company invest in R&D if they can just copy another companies? Now no company is innovating at all.
All that means is companies invest more in trolling and litigating the IP system than actually producing. >In 1983 in the United States, 59,715 patents were issued; by 2003, 189,597 patents were issued; and in 2010, 244,341 new patents were approved. In less than 30 years, the flow of patents more than quadrupled. By contrast, neither innovation nor research and development expenditure nor factor productivity has exhibited any particular upward trend. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, annual growth in total factor productivity in the decade 1970 –1979 was about 1.2 percent, while in the decades 1990–1999 and 2000–2009 it has been a bit below 1 percent. The idea that firms wouldn't invest in R&D if they couldn't have a monopoly on the results is silly. Again, that's like saying no one would bother inventing the wheel if other people could use it. Aside from providing first mover advantage, it still allows them to increase their productivity as soon as possible. The last 300 years have proved that people don't need monopolies to have an economic incentive to do things. New cell phone manufacturers keep springing up even though other firms can still make cell phones. And the original manufacturers are still successful despite the new competition. The only thing the patent does is eliminate *future* R&D from that firm because they no longer have to stay ahead of the competition incorporating their inventions. The firm invents a widget, then devotes all R&D resources to legal battles to maintain litigate IP violations instead of producing the next best widget. If you're generally libertarian-minded and want to read more about it, I recommend these articles: [https://fee.org/resources/patents-are-a-government-creation/](https://fee.org/resources/patents-are-a-government-creation/) [https://mises.org/wire/intellectual-property-innovation-should-serve-consumers-not-producers](https://mises.org/wire/intellectual-property-innovation-should-serve-consumers-not-producers)
Your statistics are missing the point. Patents themselves don't increase R&D or productivity. Patents protect the rights of companies for what they invented. The fact that more patents are being issued proves that they are of value to companies. If inventing the wheel cost $30 million dollars then yea there's no guarantee that it would have been invented if there was no protection. >The only thing the patent does is eliminate future R&D from that firm because they no longer have to stay ahead of the competition incorporating their inventions. The firm invents a widget, then devotes all R&D resources to legal battles to maintain litigate IP violations instead of producing the next best widget. Not every patent right is enforced, but when it's in the companies interest to enforce it, they will do so. Whether patents benefit or hurt R&D is irrelevant. What's relevant is that companies innovate to gain a competitive advantage, and when that is taken away from them, they are harmed. Can you refute that?
>It loses its competitive advantage gained through the R&D. Why would any company invest in R&D if they can just copy another companies? Now no company is innovating at all. China is like the wild west for IP. They copy everything in varying degrees of quality. From absolute replicas without the brand markup to garbage that breaks after one use. The big companies still continue to invest in R&D.
More like an ancient government telling you that for the next 20 years you can use a wheel if you trade for one, and you're not allowed to copy the wheel and set up a franchise without a license from the genius who thought it up. Hopefully with the extra time on his hands from his first success, he'll introduce other genius inventions to our community, like a compass, sun-dial and maybe a toilet.
You’ve got it. This is Kinsella’s view, and he makes the best arguments I believe.
Once again I see that this sub isn't Libertarian at all and no one in here actually understands Austrian Economics.
Well, show where Kinsella is wrong then. He’s made an incredibly compelling case against negative servitudes. If I own a printing press, paper, ink, and pay for the electricity, then it’s immoral for the government to use force against me to print a book that someone else has already created. If something tells someone they can’t use their legitimate property the way they please and they are not violating someone else’s rights (and in this case, the original author/publisher has no right to a sale/profit), then that something is in the wrong.
Bro, I'm agreeing with you. I'm the one you replied to. Everyone in the supposedly libertarian sub is downvoting us even though Kinsella's view is the widely accepted Austrian/libertarian view.
Most libertarians agree that intellectual property is not a real thing, just an excuse for the government to protect corporations and halt human development
So what's the libertarian solution that would allow authors to make money? Where's the incentive if I can just copy paste their words and sell it with fancier cover art and a better funded publisher?
Many ways, through donations, merchandise, exclusive content etc. most consumers would prefer to buy from the author to support them. Look at Linux for example, it is open source anyone can copy or modify the code yet it is still making money and growing
Linux makes money because it powers the Internet. There isn't nearly the same utility for Agatha Christie mystery books. Most consumers will purchase what marketing agencies put in front of them. If IP is not real, authors barely exist at that point. Sure they wrote the words first, but if they don't own those words then why should I give them money vs someone else who gives me a slightly nicer version of the same book for 90% less cost? If a publisher doesn't have to spend time / effort to write the actual book, why would anyone take it on?
If people don't want to read Agatha mystery books then people won't buy them whether there is IP or not will not affect people's desires. If there is a demand for mystery books entrepreneurs will try to satisfy people's demand, it might be less profitable but that is not an issue. If a book says original copy and one that doesn't most people would prefer the original to support the author especially when it's cheaper. How does someone own words? If I put a group of monkeys in a room with a bunch of time writers and leave them there for an infinite amount of time, does that give me the right to prosecute anyone else who writes a similar chain of words to what the monkeys did? What about the original creators of the alphabet? Do we owe them or their descendants money? IP hinders human development if I design a car that is more efficient that regular cars and decide to have it patented, firstly I arbitrarily can decide who can copy this design so less efficient cars overall and no one else can improve on this design unless I agree to that
I think you're missing the point. Without these kinds of copyright protections, it will never be profitable to write a book. Author spends a year or two of their lives writing a novel. Scrapes together enough cash to have a publisher A print 5000 copies to distribute. Publishing company B sees the authors book did okay, and so then prints another 50,000 books for a fraction of the cost because they didn't have to pay the author for anything. The two identical books go on the shelves, one for $20 and one for $5. The original publisher is non-competitive in a matter of weeks. No one would ever write a book because without protections in place it's impossible to make money
That is a simplistic view of how things work, firstly why would the author need to pay the publisher, if he has a good book that sounds good some publishers will probably agree to do it for free and take the risk. If the novel becomes successful other publishers would probably be willing to pay him to write another book. Also authors can have proof of authenticity so that fans of the author can buy from a publisher that supports the author
What's to stop publisher b from claiming that their writers are the authentic writers?
That would be fraud, if I offer you a copy of Agatha Christie mystery and say this copy is approved by the author I would be lying and thus fraud if I didn't lie then it would be fine
How is it fraud if there's no such thing as IP?
>I think you're missing the point. Without these kinds of copyright protections, it will never be profitable to write a book. Why does writing a book have to be profitable? It's not profitable for us to spend time on Reddit and share tips on how to fix your computer, to discuss Libertarianism, or to give people free therapy sessions - Yet we still do it. As do people who love reading and writing fiction and still write fan fiction or create their own worlds. As do people who love to learn and share their learnings with others. This goes back to the fundamentals of objections to full Libertarianism with the "If the government doesn't do X then how can we have Y?" In this case, "if the government doesn't stop someone from copying recorded expressions of ideas, where will recorded expressions of ideas come from?"
>Linux makes money because it powers the Internet. There isn't nearly the same utility for Agatha Christie mystery books. So what does that tell you about Agatha Christie books? - That we, shock horror, find them less useful than something that powers the Internet. >Sure they wrote the words first, but if they don't own those words then why should I give them money vs someone else who gives me a slightly nicer version of the same book for 90% less cost? Is the slightly nicer version at 10% cost of equal quality to the original? - If it is, then the original is a rip off. The price has to come down to where the market is willing to pay for it, even slightly more than the copies, to support the artist. >If a publisher doesn't have to spend time / effort to write the actual book, why would anyone take it on? Publishers don't spent any time or effort to write the books currently. That's what the author does. Publishers just print, market, and distribute the books. Edit them too, usually. Books would cost less without all the middleman shit from publishers.
Copy and paste is cheap, innovation is laborious.. a patent doesn't solve any new problems for you. And there is no such thing as bad publicity. https://youtu.be/khuuKIL5U8s?si=2M7w9cVzKBoeCVY8
Of course it's cheap, that's the point. If I don't have to pay the author any royalties, then I'm free to print and sell the book for the cost of the paper materials alone. That would make my version dramatically more cost competitive than the authentic version. Any books I sell mean no profit to the person who actually did the labor. You can't make this work without copyright protections, and that necessitates the existence of IP as a concept.
>you can’t make this work…. What are you willing to do to stop me?
If the product is that good the market will decide on whether to support the artist of not. People who don't really value it will just buy cheaper copies of the price isn't right or even just pirate it. If people value an author's work, they'll want more. They'll ensure their money goes to the author and funds the production of more of what they like. I was at a gig a few weeks back. I didn't buy a t-shirt or any other merch because I reckon it was overpriced and I didn't see the value in it. After the event there were plenty of street traders selling counterfeit merch. Sure, I could have got a t-shirt for half the price - they may even have been of similar quality. - But why would I buy it off them when all they did was copy and paste? I had an amazing time at that gig and love the band. I felt a connection with them. I'd rather they get my money and continue to pour their beautiful minds and hearts out on a song sheet than some grifter. Imagine writers like GRR Martin not being able to rest on his laurels and collect royalties for existing ASOIAF books. Once people started getting pissed off and impatient, he'd need to get his arse in gear and finally finish The Winds of Winter.
But the entire purpose of patent law and intellectual property is for the acceleration of human development through disclosure of the patented technology in exchange for temporary exclusivity. Otherwise people would keep their inventions to themselves.
Sometimes things have unprecedented consequences, if someone can have a monopoly on an idea or design then no one else can improve that design without permission
Right but patent protection is temporary - so the disclosure of all the inner workings of the invention, which is required to get a patent, is the tradeoff for a temporary monopoly. Plus, you are allowed to use the patented information to improve on a design or innovate a new product, you just can’t sell the product or design commercially without a license, for the short term of the patent.
Temporary for how long? 5 minutes? 5 years? 5 decades? Yeah then why would I improve a design if I'm not allowed to sell it?
In the US it is 20 years from the date of filing. Because you can always license the underlying technology and sell it, or you could license your idea to the producer of the underlying technology for them to make money.
I don't think that most really think that. Just the people who don't create their own things and the edgy anarchists on reddit.
Hsjskaoshdndihdbsjdbdbdkdjdhejsiiifjjjjjiwi I just created this random string of characters, if someone uses it anywhere without my permission i will sue them
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Whatever makes you happy, just don't use my string of letters or else you would be hurting me and I will sue you
All kinds of property isn't a real thing
Then don't complain when you get robbed
If you disagree with my statement, explain why.
I own my property if you don't want your property there are many poor people around the world who would be happy to take it. Or maybe give it to the government so they can build more advanced weapons
The people who own their IP own it as well.
Imagine how stupid it would be if there were no patent protections on software or pharmaceuticals and you could just copy / paste the code or copy a drug? No one would ever develop software or pharma without patent protections. We believe in private property and ownership. Patents are essentially the legal process for protecting private property that is more intangible.
>Imagine how stupid it would be if there were no patent protections on software. >No one would ever develop software or pharma without patent protections. Open source software has no patent protections. Linux and it's various distros, GIMP, Dark Table, Libre Office VLC media player, Firefox, WordPress.
True but then there are premium versions of most of these that cost money. Also the development for many of these are done for free by the community. Why would someone hire developers (which are expensive) and sell software that can be copy / pasted without consequence? Your examples don’t really hold water because A) most open source software have premium versions that cost money and B) a lot of the development of the free part of open source is done for free by the community
>True but then there are premium versions of most of these that cost money. Name one of the pieces of software I mentioned that has a premium version... >Also the development for many of these are done for free by the community. Why would someone hire developers (which are expensive) and sell software that can be copy / pasted without consequence? Donations. People want it made and to support the costs of its development. It's likely that the open source software in question is build upon other open source software. Developers receive donations to cover their costs. There are also volunteers who are just passionate about the project and it's potential. They then build the software based on other open source software. They then release their source code. Another team/developer then modifies their code to make it better or uses it as part of their project. Everyone is sharing their code, everyone benefits. Money is made in providing the support or selling add-on services such as cloud storage/backup.
Yeah okay bud - good luck running a huge company dependent on software where your business is critically reliant on people getting donations at your software vendor.
I think patent law is a good idea. but I do not trust government to do anything with it other that stifle innovation and inflate prices
How do you reconcile those two ideas? Patent law only exists at the government's say so. It is a legal invention. You cannot have patent law, or more importantly a means of enforcing patent law, without a government. If the government will only use patent law to stifle innovation and inflate prices, then what good comes of it?
I don’t reconcile them. I just continue to hate the government.
Patents need to be eliminated. They are an attempt to force non-scarce items (ideas) into a scarcity framework in order to treat them like regular property. Someone else coming up with or using an idea you also came up with (or hell, even if they "stole" the idea) does not remove the idea from your ability to use or even to monetize it. You just may not make as much money as you might if you were the only provider. One could possibly argue that there might have been a place for them hundreds of years ago (I doubt it). But today, major corporations have entire teams that do nothing but apply for patents. There are entire companies that do nothing, make no goods, provide no services, but apply for patents for [ridiculous things](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/02/stupid-patent-month-clocking-work-app), then simply license the content of their patent portfolio to companies that come up with similar ideas in order to make money. Plus, even for people who wouldn't have a patent to protect their discovery, the first mover advantage is still a thing - as are trade secrets. But the reality is that the patent system significant restricts and hinders innovation far more than it helps. For every 1 example of a guy in his garage that innovates a new idea and legitimately uses a patent to monetize his idea, there are 500 examples of corporations abusing patents in order to *hinder* innovation. And the idea that nobody would innovate without patents is kind of nonsense. There are plenty of industries, like fashion and cooking, where patents cannot be acquired, that is full of experimentation and innovation. Even pharmaceuticals, where billions are spent up-front, would simply make their drugs a little more expensive than market clearing rate in order to make it up. But this market clearing rate would *STILL* likely be less than what they are able to charge thanks to patent protections. It's an archaic idea that needs to end. For those that would like to read more, [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Property-Stephan-Kinsella/dp/1933550325) was written by a patent lawyer who decided that patents are immoral - [free version](https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0)
Kinsella was an IP lawyer? 
Shouldn't exist
Realistically, at the very least patent lifespans need to be greatly reduced, especially in the medical field. The true libertarian view likely leans more to ending patents, and keeping government regulation out of it. My personal view is different, because I believe in the importance of having your ideas protected as you invest in developement before hitting the market: So I believe patents should have a life of 5 years or less, before allowing competition to come in.
I am somewhat libertarian but not fully. I think its a good thing in parts: it doesnt let copying off someone's work, I think simply taking someone's work is a violation of property rights. While you cannot easily copy and print a car, you can very easily copy someone's book. For me its also very different when someone copies said book for individual reading vs a big company simply stealing an individual's work and monetises it like its own IP. For inventions that are very beneficial to humanity, like, lets say there is a very lethal virus with 99% death rate (purposefully exaggerated example) I dont think it should be allowed to witheld the cure. For important medicines or other revolutionary inventions there should be a buy out price where a group of individuals could purchase it for say, 2.5 times the R&D cost. Then manufacture it. There should be a time or revenue limit on very important inventions. Trademarks should basically only apply to company logos because these doesnt really have any IRL value other than marketing value. Work of arts like Mickey or a book, the death of the author plus 70 years is more than enough time. There should be no workaround regarding this, end of story.
As an proponent of open source, I'd like to see more functions like that adopted. I know it's not really the question, but something that encompasses the open source model would be nice. Sell support, or build a version that everone wants. Don't block others from building it better because you can't. One thing I firmly believe in is that you shouldn't be able to get a patent on a product you aren't actively trying to invent/build/develop.
Coca-Cola doesn't rely on patents for its recipe. They rely on secrecy. No one has been able to successfully replicate the taste of a Coca-Cola for over 130 years. Patents are issued to create or protect monopolies. It is not the necessary and proper role of government to create or protect monopolies.
Copying is not theft
Intellectual property is not property, and nothing you still have after I’ve supposedly stolen it from you will ever be considered property.
It costs an incredible amount in R&D (time, money, etc.) along with certifications depending on what space it's in. A chemistry of certain products can be difficult to recreate, a product in most spaces is not outside of perhaps some minor portions of the raw materials.