I often speak to people who say that no one would innovate without government-secured monopoly on information, and this is clearly false as open source works without this monopoly. As such it seems to me that people who make that claim don’t understand how innovation works.

Often I say that if we phased out patents and other IP restrictions, then investments would not stop but they would change from less frequent large investments to more frequent small investments. As long as designs can stay secret until release, there will always be first mover advantage and brand recognition. But you might get smaller investments to build out manufacturing for the next year, rather than bigger longer term investments. The flip side is that stagnant innovators who got lucky once will be subsumed by more agile competitors who can better deliver those innovations to market.

Thus investment and innovation wouldn’t stop - markets still ensure certain advantages for innovators - but the nature of investment and innovation wouldn’t shift towards more incremental moves and more diverse actors. A major upside to this is that those best suited to scale an existing nascent technology would be free to compete at doing so.

It should be noted that even die hard capitalists are against IP restrictions [1] as they are a massive government investment in the market. So proponents of IP restrictions must reconcile their arguments in favor of this government intervention with their potential interest in free markets.

[1] https://youtu.be/GZgLJkj6m0A

Yeah, I do agree with that. Same with the rationale for copyright.