It is largely capitalist in nature but I don't think it's fair to say that it is solely capitalist. There still exists property in socialism however it exists in collective ownership instead of singular ownership and theft or abuse of that property would still be a thing with socialism.
Trademarks would also continue to exist as they generally serve a practical purpose of preventing impersonation of companies, goods, and services. Ownership would be collective among workers as all other property would be and scope requirements for trademark enforcement would likely be limited.
Additionally, the subset of copyright that is copyleft fits in very cleanly with socialism. It guarantees the users and the users' users some degree of rights (as well as enforcing attribution which costs nothing). So you could imagine a socialist view of copyright where copyleft is preserved more or less in perpetuity while traditional copyright continues to exist in a limited, reduced form with a shorter lifespan (i.e. 5-10 years instead of death+70/95/120 years).
As for patents, it's kind of fuzzy. They don't fit well into any socialist understanding of intellectual property and of all the types of IP that exist, they are the only type that constrains knowledge/inventions/craft/skill as property (vs trademark -> identity and copyright -> specific works/creations). You can argue for ownership of the specific products of your labors and you can argue for ownership your identity but it's near impossible to argue within a socialist framework for ownership of ideas/knowledge in of itself or for ownership of the ability to apply that knowledge.
If one was to insist on patents in a socialist society, they'd have to be limited to short lifetimes (i.e. less than 5 years w/ no extension) and copyleft intangibles(ex: software) or products with copyleft manufacturing & design documents would need to be exempt from any exclusivity the patents may grant.
And so long as we live in a capitalist economy, we might as well use that construct to protect people's livelihoods as opposed to letting huge corporations use their work to make billions in profit.
Trademarks would also continue to exist as they generally serve a practical purpose of preventing impersonation of companies, goods, and services. Ownership would be collective among workers as all other property would be and scope requirements for trademark enforcement would likely be limited.
Additionally, the subset of copyright that is copyleft fits in very cleanly with socialism. It guarantees the users and the users' users some degree of rights (as well as enforcing attribution which costs nothing). So you could imagine a socialist view of copyright where copyleft is preserved more or less in perpetuity while traditional copyright continues to exist in a limited, reduced form with a shorter lifespan (i.e. 5-10 years instead of death+70/95/120 years).
As for patents, it's kind of fuzzy. They don't fit well into any socialist understanding of intellectual property and of all the types of IP that exist, they are the only type that constrains knowledge/inventions/craft/skill as property (vs trademark -> identity and copyright -> specific works/creations). You can argue for ownership of the specific products of your labors and you can argue for ownership your identity but it's near impossible to argue within a socialist framework for ownership of ideas/knowledge in of itself or for ownership of the ability to apply that knowledge.
If one was to insist on patents in a socialist society, they'd have to be limited to short lifetimes (i.e. less than 5 years w/ no extension) and copyleft intangibles(ex: software) or products with copyleft manufacturing & design documents would need to be exempt from any exclusivity the patents may grant.