Corporations have lobbied IP laws to protect their monopolies and stiff real innovations!
You can incentivize creativity with another means - state funding, crowdfunding, donations, advertising, support etc.
Creativity does not have to be 'incentivized'. It just has to be 'not stifled'.
The key to a dog running is to take off it's leash, not "give it something" or "teach it something".
What's up with the mentality that the government has anything whatsoever to do with creativity, aside from being able to harm it?
I think not incentivize but support. I mean, just look at artists, they create a civilization's material culture. They can only create if their not running on an empty stomach and that's how patronage became a big thing in the past. Artists these days would either have to find funding via commissions, sell their works, or have a part-time job.
That's why I think some degree of IP protection is needed for our innovators to keep on working. If they'll be receiving income from one of their advancement, then they're free to work on other projects without worrying over the usual maintenance for living.
It is very difficult to answer this sensitive question. If we give no importance to IP rights, then it will discourage brilliant people and there will be less and less innovation. But if it gets too strict, then a lot of poor people will be unable to afford medicines, technology, and entertainment.
There are many selfless brilliant people that would release inventions for free.
Problem is that the system is controlled by greed.
Most geniuses do not care that much about the money.
@Sithara the problem with cost could be solved with proper legislation not related to IP. For example, medicines can have a price ceiling. The most worrying about stricter IP is its chilling effects on new entrants. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. Big companies are know to use IP to sue smaller players over the littlest things.
@af_newbie Tesla would agree with that. Damn Edison!