You're going way off on a tangent from the article. Some people innovate because it's their desire, that's irrelevant to the economic argument that patents encourage research departments.

That the current implementation of patents is highly flawed doesn't affect that basic fact.

>Some people innovate because it's their desire, that's irrelevant to the economic argument that patents encourage research departments.

It's highly relevant. If the patent system is being given credit for innovation taking place that would have taken place anyway, maybe it should be dismantled or at least heavily scaled back.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the patent system is 5% encouraging research and 95% stealing credit.

It doesn't matter to someone explaining that good rents exist. That the 5% exist at all allows a demonstration of the concept.

The article mentioned that the patent system overshoots, with a link to more info. That's all that's needed.

>> nobody innovates because, without IP, you pay for the cost of R&D but "copycats" can steal the idea without paying. > > This just isn't true. It's human nature to innovate, just as it is human nature to sing, play music and dance.

Straw man fallacy.

The OP wasn't suggesting that literally nobody would innovate, just that innovation, particularly innovation paid for by private parties of the sort of thing which is expensive and easily copied, would significantly decline.

If you have ever paid to see someone sing, play music, or dance, you have participated in an activity which likely would not have occurred without there being a monetary incentive for that person to partake of the activity you paid to enjoy.