[TZubiri]

the issue with this Stallmanian view on IP is that IP predates software and solves an actual issue.

I don't think Stallman has a real proposal to how innovation can be incentivized and compensated.

Take the example of medical innovations, sure big pharma is bad, but if they don't get to monetize their inventions, how will R&D get funded?

If you destroy IP and allow everyone to clone whatever, you will have a great result in the short term, then no one will continue R&D

[duskdozer]

>Take the example of medical innovations, sure big pharma is bad, but if they don't get to monetize their inventions, how will R&D get funded?

By taking the public money that goes to medical R&D already, increased if need be, and hire scientists to research medical tech in the interest of public wellbeing and not profit.

[erelong]

I think getting rid of IP shifts economic focus on to tangible physical goods which you can exclusively own: you can sell the physical medical devices, just not claim a specific design is "yours exclusively"

IP has always had awkward things like, what if you discover the sole treatment for a disease and can restrict people from making use of it... kind of weird, especially when people can "independently" draw the same conclusions so they truly obtain an idea that is "their own" but which then they are legally restricted from making use of in such an example

[chii]

> then no one will continue R&D

i would like to see a system of publicly funded R&D.