[aequitas]

If you want a truly free market you need to abolish patents, trademarks, DRM and a lot of other laws as well. How else are other companies free to compete or consumers free to choose? The current market does not exist in a vacuum.

[trentnix]

You are describing a "free for all" market, not a "free market". Protection for patents and trademarks is absolutely compatible with a "free market" economy. But that doesn't mean that all patents and trademarks that have been granted are valid.

The patent and trademark system needs work, but the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

[kiba]

The patent and trademark system needs work, but the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

There's so many kinds and examples of egregious behaviors by patent holders that you have to wonder if we're just better off with starting from scratch and deal with the tradeoff that may come with it.

[rightbyte]

Atleast for software. Most software patents I read are silly.

[overscore]

Environmental and consumer rights regulations are also compatible with a free market.

[Dracophoenix]

No they are not. Patents are incentives. You can weigh the benefits or lack thereof and chooses to opt-in or opt-out. Regulations are a government-created burden. You can't opt out of a regulation.

[overscore]

> Patents are incentives.

They are also regulations. You can't opt-out of the patent system.

> You can weigh the benefits or lack thereof and chooses to opt-in or opt-out.

What is your proposed mechanism to opt-out? Do you mean that an inventor can choose not to apply for a patent? If so, that's not an opt-out of the patent system. You are still subject to all other valid patents.

> Regulations are a government-created burden.

Including patent regulations. It seems you support the regulations that you consider "good" and call them incentives.

Environmental and consumer rights regulations are both regulations and incentives in exactly the way patents are. They are enforced by the state and incentivise certain behaviours.

> You can't opt out of a regulation.

True. As stated, you can't opt-out of patent regulations either.

[passivate]

If you don't pollute the rivers, then you can avoid the "regulatory burden". If you don't serve food that contains poison, then you can avoid the "regulatory burden". If you don't sell cars whose brakes fail then you can completely avoid this "regulatory burden". If you're not a predatory lender then you can avoid this "regulatory burden".

[zsmi]

This is not correct. For example, I designed my circuit so it meets EMC regulations and standards, like I should. I still have to file my paperwork with the FCC which definitely counts as a "regulatory burden".

[passivate]

I was merely responding to the parent comment that strongly implied all regulations were burdens. There are many of them that do make sense! Would you not agree? I mean, without that common ground, it would be hard to have a discussion from two extreme positions (X is all good, X is all bad)

I am not intimately familiar with the example you gave so I shall just take your word for it that it is a flaw in the system.

[aequitas]

You can't opt-out of patents. You cannot enter the market with a product that infringes on a patent.

[FpUser]

>"The patent and trademark system needs work, but the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater"

This baby is only protecting big corps now. Nothing can be done at the moment without violating some "rounded corners" patent. The only reason individuals can get away with it for a while is that it is not worth for patent holders chasing. As soon as they make some money the vultures come down.

[kiba]

Innovators absolutely do get their stuff patented, but it's no guarantee that they will continue to act as innovators rather than rest on their laurel. The current 3d printing scene was held back by pioneers in the field until patents expire. You could say that today is really the golden age of 3D printing.