I'd be fine with code/algorithm patents or other forms of rights if we hadn't made the absolutely insane decision to apply copyright law to something as clearly

I'd be fine with code/algorithm patents or other forms of rights if we hadn't made the absolutely insane decision to apply copyright law to something as clearly function-oriented as (non-gaming) software. In fact, hardware was actually denied copyright protection for exactly that reason, and Congress responded by creating a separate property regime for "maskwork" that was far less restrictive. Of course that's assuming that patents or copyright are actually necessary to allow the creation of new works and inventions. As far as I'm aware, we sort of just assumed that it would be the case when we stuck it into the US Constitution. We never actually produced any sort of proof that this would be true. There were previous civilizations that managed cultural and technological innovation without it, and there were also other legal innovations concurrent with the introduction of copyright and patent law (e.g. freedom of speech, republican democracy, etc) that also have accelerated the pace of such innovations. We do know that under copyright and patent law, parties that infringe upon others' rights generally gain supra-competitive advantage that has to be remedied by a court. Clearly, if there's a law, then firms that break that law have competitive advantage. However, this is then extrapolated to assume that innovation is a natural competitive disadvantage and that we need copyright and patent law to ensure that it exists at all. This is extremely pessimistic; and probably not the case for at least some markets. Free Software projects generally do not collect licensing fees at all, and sometimes prohibit others from doing so, yet they still have regular innovation and growth.