I'm not joking. Even the person you linked to assumed that trademarks ( the ability to sell under their own name) were needed. Imagine a world where anyone can make a drug and call it Viagra - even if they don't copy the real Viagra, the original maker is being ripped off as the sales of that "Viagra" are actually sales that are intended for their "Viagra."
So you see, trademarks and patents are needed
But its a free market. If anyone wants to try to develop a drug without bothering to have it patented and sell it without bothering to have a trademark, let me know how they do.
So you see, trademarks and patents are needed
But its a free market. If anyone wants to try to develop a drug without bothering to have it patented and sell it without bothering to have a trademark, let me know how they do.The original maker of Viagra has not being ripped off. The person on the other end of the sale has been defrauded of his money because the vendor who sold him the product, misrepresented its origns for something other that what was expected (specifically a pill designed and manufactured by Pfizer).
I think that dispenses with the trademark/patent neediness theory. A free market would imply persons who own objects comprised of any combination of physical characteristics, and services, trading with whomever they choose, free of restrictions.
You can't have trademarks and patents and a free market simultaneously. That's a logical impossibility. You're going to have to admit to that one. The logic says it's so.