Government intervention trades off with more effective free market solutions – plan hinders innovation and creative problem solving

Is all lost? Are we to give up innovation? No; there is plenty of literature explaining how innovation occurs in the absence of IP protections (Against Intellectual Property and Against Intellectual Monopoly). Non-profits can innovate, too. If a group of people observe that the private sector is innovating inefficiently according to their preferences, they can form or fund a non-profit corporation that engages in research regardless of IP protections. Furthermore, for-profit companies can take a lot of measures to make sure that their formulas are not copies, such as built-in obsolescence, un-replicability, and non-disclosure agreements. These are only some ways that companies can protect their formulas. Who is to say that a company will not hire a team of scientists to innovate more in order to stay ahead of competitors? Are we to suspect that pharmaceutical companies will simply give up? Definitely not; they will just adopt a different business model. There is no way to determine a priori how a company will alter innovation in the absence of IP. Some will not be affected, some will decrease innovation, and some will innovate more. The choice of potential innovators is not always between innovating or not innovating, it is between innovating here, innovating there, or going into some non-innovative yet productive endeavor. To say that there is an underproduction of innovation at any point is to suggest that there is a better quantity of innovation that exceeds the quantity of innovation desired voluntarily by consumers. If consumers are willing and able to support a higher degree of innovation, someone will find a way to exploit that desire, thus, profiting. The claim states that there is an efficient level of innovation outside of what human actors have voluntarily demonstrated. Efficiency, determined by voluntary actions of human actors, is opposed to the IP. Ultimately, many, many people are harmed in order to provide protection for someone else’s idea in excess of the free market quantity of protection. Such a thing harms consumers generally instead of enhancing their welfare. That alone is enough to be against IP. Prioritizing one innovation over another is nothing short of arrogance. It neglects the unseen effects of government intervention and subverts the ability of the market to fulfill consumer desires. All action aims at the satisfaction of human affairs. Choosing not to innovate is a beneficial decision just like any other, and we should not make it a matter of public policy.