[hi_im_miles]

The flaw with this argument is the assumption that incentives cannot exist towards innovation without IP protections. It's obvious why investors will seldomly invest in non-protected innovation: monopolies are just significantly more lucrative. Absent that incentive, are there no truly no alternatives? Was this assumption ever tested prior to these policies being implemented?

I think it's also worth asking why the available funding for innovation is almost exclusively in the hands of capitalists in the first place. Do they simply have superior business acumen, or are there protections / rent-seeking behaviors at play here?

[esyir]

I'll say this though. The answer to the first one is no, at least on a higher level. Most purple pursue things for their own self interest. Who would invest so much time, resources and effort solely for others gain. They might be great people, but they're rare. Allowing the innovators to profit from their creations nicely aligns incentives.

The problem here is that people love to pick at the current system, but ignore the flaws of their much treasured alternative.

[hi_im_miles]

I am extremely skeptical that there is no financial incentive to being first-to-market and building a reputation as an innovator, even at a "higher level", especially when these incentives are completely overshadowed by the ones created by IP. I don't believe all financial incentive disappears just because you eliminate the ability to rent-seek through a state-backed monopoly.

The problem here is that people also love to defend the current system, while actively prohibiting alternatives from ever taking root.