| > because these intellectual property protections are intended to incentivize creation Judge something not by what people say it does, but by what it actually does. > If that incentive overwhelms these models of information sharing and testing frictions then the model is incomplete. Agreed. But try as I might, I can't find any way theoretically or empirically to model copyrights and patents that show a positive impact on innovation. Nature's survival of the fittest already provides near infinite incentive to innovate. Now, I think patents and copyrights had a positive side-effect effect in the early days of the United States because it created a centralized library in the District of Columbia containing all of the latest information across the fledgling nation. But with the Internet, we don't even need that anymore. All the other parts of those laws are harmful and a drain on innovation. Look at what happened with Windows/Crowdstrike-ultimately another harm caused by closed source, under-evolved "IP protected" ideas. Ironically Microsoft calls Windows their "Intellectual Property" when collecting money, but when that IP harms people, suddenly it's not their property. > Is there any evidence that the equations in the blog post model the real world? Depends on where you live. If you live in America, evidence is all around you. :) But here is some hard data, thousands of programming languages ranked by languages most used to build other languages (which gives an objective measure of idea quality): https://pldb.io/lists/explorer.html#columns=rank~name~id~app... Utterly dominated by open source langs. Closed source, IP ones are headed for extinction. |