Ok, so let us take this steam-engine example. Instead of trying to copy/paste use the steam-engine technology, why did they not (the competitors) work on inventing a better engine that did not run on coal heated water & steam, like for example the combustion-engine, the jet-engine, diesel or even crude-oil or whale-oil engines?
It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong - that the focus on the steam-engine stalled innovation in other engine areas for a very long time... And yeah, there are patents in the combustion engine department as well, so for a long time competitors designed different ways of using petrol-based engines...
And that went on for a while, now it is hydrogene driven engines that are being developed, and we have development in electric storage (tesla motors, etc.) and I believe for a while competitors will copy/paste what they can from those developments instead of focusing on other engine types.
If you take the entire visible and invisible spectrum of frequencies and a full periodic table of elements to play with, it seems to me that if competitors really want to compete, they should innovate something new instead of copy something old.
Why reinvent the wheel when all you want to do is improve it? Why should people stand in the way of progress because of a "legal privilege" that in fact violates the real property rights of others?
Suggested reading: Against Intellectual Property, by IP attorney Stephan Kinsella: https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0
Let me think about it for a couple of days. I like this debate, but I do not want to rush into conclusions without looking at the bigger picture of things.
Thank you both for the nice conversation, keep me posted :)
Understandable. It is a complicated issue, and I did not arrive at my current beliefs on the subject without considerable time and thought.