Ethics are only one component: there's also the simply criteria of whether the policy meets the desired goal. If an anti-rape law somehow resulted in more rape, having an ethical argument about it would be absurd.
The stated goal of patents is not a moral imperative to protect inventors, but rather an economic hack that is meant to incentivize invention for the benefit of society, only benefitting inventors as a side effect. The fact that it is achieving the opposite of its goal means that an ethical discussion is worth having, but mostly irrelevant (see also: the Drug War).
There's a very large difference between stated goals and desired goals, the goals you mentioned are all stated goals.
If you tried to abolish intellectual property the main opposition wouldn't be parties whose main motivation would be a genuine concern that you'd be de-incentivizing invention for the benefit of society, but rather parties who have a vested interest in the current system for their own benefit.
Comments
Ethics are only one component: there's also the simply criteria of whether the policy meets the desired goal. If an anti-rape law somehow resulted in more rape, having an ethical argument about it would be absurd.
The stated goal of patents is not a moral imperative to protect inventors, but rather an economic hack that is meant to incentivize invention for the benefit of society, only benefitting inventors as a side effect. The fact that it is achieving the opposite of its goal means that an ethical discussion is worth having, but mostly irrelevant (see also: the Drug War).
There's a very large difference between stated goals and desired goals, the goals you mentioned are all stated goals.
If you tried to abolish intellectual property the main opposition wouldn't be parties whose main motivation would be a genuine concern that you'd be de-incentivizing invention for the benefit of society, but rather parties who have a vested interest in the current system for their own benefit.