@Night Ripper,
I think the negatives of no patent system drastically outweigh any positives you might imagine. One example is the invention of the forceps, an intrument to help in childbirth. After the perfection of the design of the forceps, the
inventors keep it secret for a century, meaning that unless you could pay top dollar to the obstetrician and happened to live in the English town where he did, you would just have to suffer and perhaps die in childbirth. Of course there is no guarantee that he would have shared his secret for a decent royalty from each pair made, but one benefit of a patent system is that there is no need for such secrecy. He could have participated in many more deliveries by sharing his device than he ever did in real life.
The second consideration is that the development of a meaningful patent is very expensive. It is not enough that a scientist somewhere has a cool idea. That idea must be demonstrated. Equipment must be built, modified and rebuilt. Experiments (often expensive ones) must be run, problems must be solved. A company could easily drop $100 million in fully developing a new idea. You're suggesting that someone could just take those finalized plans, run to somewhere where labor is cheap and take the business. That's going to force companies to hide what they are doing and slow development as they focus on security over problem solving. No scientists are going to publish papers and no peer review. The monster downside to this is that these open forums where scientists in the field interact drive innovation in general. Your competitor may have solved a problem using a new technique, but you can use that technique to solve a different problem. You can see companies that have synergy with yours and decide to tackle mutual problems together. You can even license the technology and get on with your business.
A patent system
encourages the free exchange of ideas you desire by protecting the investments of those who generate them. Likewise, music and book copyrights maintain their industries. Why would anyone take the time (sometimes years) to write or edit a book when they stand no chance of making a return for their effort? Many times, the sales of things like music are done on a sliding scale. You can listen to it on the radio for free. If you want a high quality personal copy, you are asked for a dollar. That's it: a dollar. If you are really hooked, if it is really special to you, then maybe you'll come up with $50-$100 for a concert ticket. I'm continuously amazed that people think this is unreasonable. Likewise, you can find a book in the library if you don't want to pay for it, but if you want a copy for yourself, all you have to do it put out a small fee. Do you really think there would have been a Harry Potter 2 if HP1 didn't turn a profit? You are fooling yourself if you think that truly dedicated artists and writers will turn out material for your pleasure with no hope of compensation.
