Of course, as stated elsewhere, I don’t think that liberty is the only virtue in life. Utility (ie happiness, broadly defined) is also important.

Second, could you chaps perhaps call the other john “JohnZ” or just “Z” so that I don’t get an identity crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Maskin#Software_patents

“Maskin suggested that software patents inhibit innovation rather than stimulate progress. Software, semiconductor, and computer industries have been innovative despite historically weak patent protection, he argued. Innovation in those industries has been sequential and complementary, so competition can increase firms’ future profits. In such a dynamic industry, “patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare.” A natural experiment occurred in the 1980s when patent protection was extended to software,” wrote Maskin. “Standard arguments would predict that R&D intensity and productivity should have increased among patenting firms. Consistent with our model, however, these increases did not occur.” Other evidence supporting this model includes a distinctive pattern of cross-licensing and a positive relationship between rates of innovation and firm entry. [4]”

Software innovation is one of the items you have been rather defensive of.

[4] Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, by James Bessen and Eric Maskin, Discussion paper, MIT (2000), forthcoming in The RAND Journal of Economics

Perhaps there will be some special customisations in some areas, but that is not what they are doing now.
I have no problem with the idea of weakening IP. As I stated up-thread, there are problems with the current system, but abolishing it entirely would be even worse.

No one has provided an even vaguely credible argument which shows that common law and market forces can replace government granted IP.

I’ve explained at length why your examples won’t work and cited real examples such as generics companies who are doing exactly what I suggested they would do. There haven’t been many successful contracts stopping companies distributing the generic drugs once the patent expires, have there?

Your arguments smack of wishful thinking. You also haven’t provided any links to any empirical analysis that supports the abolition of IP.

Boutique as they serve farmers, not the entire industry. Like how a lawyer is “boutique” because he can’t solve the entire nation’s legal problems.

It isn’t farcical at all. There is a strong body of literature which strongly argues for the weakening if not reduction in IP. You just seem to be angry that it exists at all.

Industry structures will change. Lowest cost producers will reward innovators and innovation will become service based, not product based. You’re not being rational, you don’t even want to invite a empirical analysis, you want to dismiss it out of hand.

With you I’m arguing policy because despite your claims to be a utilitarian, your utility function seems to look something like this:

if action_is_by_government then
utilty=0
otherwise
utility=1

What Monsanto would need to do otherwise would make agreements with grain exchanges, farmers and retail stores.

It’s simply too easy to free-ride. Any who strikes a deal will quickly be undercut by competitors who aren’t party to the contract.

Maybe firms like Monsanto shouldn’t exist in their current form but offer consultancy services as opposed to product based competition.

WTF? So instead of actually a providing a product, they’ll instead provide consultancy services to other companies, who’ll face the exact problems Monsanto did.

John, your idea completely ignores the possibility of botique engineering by small firms for certain conditions.

Sure, money could still be made there but the key word was boutique.

This is becoming farcical, Mark.

John, your idea completely ignores the possibility of botique engineering by small firms for certain conditions. This may well be the most productive way to go ahead. IP law as is and patents would totally destroy this kind of innovation. Why should genes that already exist be patented and limit this kind of activity? The IP in this case would be a matter of proprietary information and technical know how. The pricing structure can determine the deterrence or futility of cheating.

Maybe firms like Monsanto shouldn’t exist in their current form but offer consultancy services as opposed to product based competition.

What Monsanto would need to do otherwise would make agreements with grain exchanges, farmers and retail stores. The difference here is I am only treating the innovation as either proprietary information or another product feature that warrants exclusivity.

It is difficult to argue this is too costly, since effective deterrence requires a smiliar level of surveillance.