Nice try... And on the surface, a convincing argument by you.
However, patents ARE “Intellectual Property Rights.”
Here’s more reading for the misinformed:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/25/debunking-myth-patents-create-monopoly/id=78756/
Whether or not you agree that a patent is a monopoly, what do you think will happen to pharmaceutical innovation if patent protection is cut short to only 3 years as you short-sightedly suggested?
Answer: You’ll see a drastic reduction in pharmaceutical innovation. That’s why I said there would be a free-market capitalist response to what you’re suggesting (3 year patent limit).
Do you really want less innovation? How about patent rights for engineering inventions? What’s the incentive to invent anything if there’s no intellectual property rights for your inventions which are your property.
A socialist/Democrap would say your ideas and your brilliance are the property of “the collective” as soon as you invent your widget.
LOL. Yeah, capital letters are real convincing, but not an argument that patents are property. Patents are not property. Patent defenders know this. That's why they add the "intellectual" qualifier.
[your link]
That's got to be one of the silliest arguments I've heard yet. Patents prevent a market from developing so they can't be called monopolies? That is incoherent. The premise does however, completely undercut your next argument.
You’ll see a drastic reduction in pharmaceutical innovation.
As you article sugests, patents retard innovation by constraining the market for new ideas, and by distorting the incentives for innovation into patentable areas and away from unpatentable ones. If drug patents were shortened the incentive would be to reduce production costs. Currently the incentive is to make small changes to existing drugs so they can be repatented.
A socialist/Democrap would say your ideas and your brilliance are the property of “the collective” as soon as you invent your widget.
I say ideas are not property at all, collective or otherwise.