[RKV]

Reduce the profit from inovation, and take away the incentive to innovate.

[Pukin Dog]

Innovators rarely profit. Those who take innovations to market cheaply usually do profit. Whether those companies are one and the same, is really up to the company in question.

Many of the same companies that complain about being undercut overseas were the ones that sold/shared their technology with those under-cutters when it was profitable for them.

Boeing builds wings in Japan, because when they went to Japan for cheaper manufacturing, Japan insisted on a piece of the action long term. Who is the fool?

[bvw]

More apt, and for shorter grants of the patent and copyright monopoly on manufacture, and perhaps against what may be your own views of expansionist "intellectual property" is:

Reduce the profit from litigation and take away the incentive to litigate.

The posited benefit of patent and copyright restrictions on freedom -- for that's what they are, grants of sole right to use of an idea, thus they are at the same time and more broadly, restrictions on use of those same ideas -- those posited, imagined benfits are far outweighted by the hobbling effect of litigation. That is, increasing patent (and copyight) life-times and scopes engenders litigation much more than invention and innovation.