Yes, you are the only one who can sell your house. But I can build another one that looks just like it and your property rights will not be violated. The purpose of a patent is to maintaining a price, but price is not a property right. You can sell your house, but you can't force a buyer to pay your price, nor prevent him from buying elsewhere if he doesn't like your price. The reason you lower price is because the buyer has other options you can't control. If you don't like the price of a patented drug however, your suffering or death doesn't affect the price of the drug whatsoever. Some "free market" eh?
You can't call anything free if it involves the government threatening you.
It certainly is.
But you are saying it like it's a bad thing.
It's not.
It allows someone who comes up with a better way of doing something to benefit from that idea for a period of time.
But I can build another one that looks just like it and your property rights will not be violated”
Patents are for unique products not identical ones.
I draw the house analogy because every property IS unique.
Even if you have the same building, the land is different.
Identical houses, one next to the highway, where it’s loud 24x7 I different than the one next to a park.
The uniqueness is where I draw my analogy. So I DO have a monopoly on my house. Your concern that therefore, I can charge what I want, is unfounded. The reality is, the noisy lot can’t sell the same as the quiet one. They have to reduce the price.
The ownership of my property is exclusive. Hence patents are not only exclusive but unique. Being able to “sell” someone else’s patent is like someone else being able to sell your house.
As you correctly indicate, someone can buy another house. In the pill situation, someone can pursue an alternative treatment for their condition (which includes ‘no treatment). Hence, the freedom of the market is maintained.
Saying patents are a holdover from the old days is like saying property rights are a holdover.