It is an unwarranted assumption that patents actually increase promiscuity of ideas.
Rather, patents probably impedes the progress of industries as varied as steam engines and software.
There is at least two economists in the world who dispute patents and copyright having place in the natural order of the free market:
Examine the evidence and decide for yourself:
It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is not like ordinary property at all, but constitutes a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not neccesary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty. -- Against Intellectual Monopoly
But it is an unwarranted assumption that patents inherently inhibit the promiscuity of ideas.
Through theory and example people have also shown that virtually unregulated capitalism produces the "most prosperous" results. They have done this for Marxism as well.
Properly applied patents and intellectual property protection can aid the rate of innovation and progress.
Now, has it ever been properly applied in this world? Can it ever be applied correctly in this world? How hard is it to apply it properly in this world if it can be applied?
Well, what does it mean "be applied correctly" to you? Proper application may not be particularly palatable. There is no free lunch.
I would argue that the drug development has generally had properly applied patents. Drug prices suck. That poor countries cannot get adequate medical drugs sucks. However that is an entirely different kind of pain than the drugs not existing yet.
It is likely not that hard to apply properly. I think we just don't like how it feels. It reminds me of free speech. We gain so much good from it -- but we also have the Hannity, Beck, Jenny McCarthy types too.
Rather, patents probably impedes the progress of industries as varied as steam engines and software.
There is at least two economists in the world who dispute patents and copyright having place in the natural order of the free market:
Examine the evidence and decide for yourself:
It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is not like ordinary property at all, but constitutes a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not neccesary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty. -- Against Intellectual Monopoly
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...
The book is free to read online, but you can also get yourself a dead tree version of the book if you like.