Yes, I am aware of the theoretical justification for IP. I'm just not convinced that it's as strong a justification as is claimed. I think that the current syst

Yes, I am aware of the theoretical justification for IP. I'm just not convinced that it's as strong a justification as is claimed. I think that the current system, in general, provides monopoly protection beyond what is necessary to compensate for these externalities, and is hence detrimental to the economy. See, for example, chapters 4 and 8 of Boldrin and Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly (Google to find the PDF), which presents empirical evidence that patent protections go beyond what is necessary. "To sum up, careful statistical analyses of the nineteenth century's available data, carried out by distinguished economic historians, uniformly shows two things. Patents neither increase the rate of innovation nor are the best instrument to maximize inventors' revenue. Patents create a market in patents and the legal and technical services required to trade and enforce them." My point is that a market in patents is not our goal, and absent evidence that such a market increases innovation (our real goal), there's no reason to have one. I don't think the evidence available supports the extent of the current patent system -- it might support a more limited one, but I'm not making a claim there.