"Why should you get to play by a different set of rules then they did?" Because 1)the rules are arbitrary, and 2) the same argument was made by the first guy t

"Why should you get to play by a different set of rules then they did?" Because 1)the rules are arbitrary, and 2) the same argument was made by the first guy to get locked out of commercializing his own invention because someone else patented it first. The "because: the status quo" argument is isn't very compelling. "It has to be easy and cost-effective to protect your creations, or else the incentive to create is greatly diminished and the ROI for R&D is zero." The incentive might shift, but certainly not disappear. The focus would be on tangible and less speculative areas (food, shelter, basic tech; all positive in a recession), but I wouldn't expect to suffer. Fear of eliminating patents and copyright is a boogyman. (Edit: To elaborate: you don't "protect" ideas, and winning by holding people back is misanthropic.) "VC, private equity.. hell, even Wall St., wouldn't be in America were it not for our world-class intellectual property laws." Correlation is not causation. I would say "in spite of". The US (and NA) markets are different, and arguably less competitive, than even 50 years ago. (Edit: The current economic downturn coincides with ramping up on copyright and imaginary property law, among other things.) "the complaints behind both of them stem from a lot of the same entitlement mindset that startups are somehow entitled to implement technologies or host data that is not theirs." That entitlement is the sentiment that used to be associated with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," IMHO. Hardly something to dismiss or resent.