I find it a bit difficult to think of it this way for me. I think a temporary monopoly further limits social impact and development and shouldn't be the incentive. I think within the IP framework, they should probably be viewed differently, without being what I'm advocating
Discussion
I understand your point and agree it has merit. But incentives for publicizing creativity and investing the time and work to create are helpful to those who cannot create in any given category of work and yet benefit from access to what is created.
There may be better ways to provide the incentives but the temporary monopolies of IP might actual speed rather than hinder innovation . It might also be different with respect to individual versus corporate or government innovators.
The goal is to demonstrate that there are ways (more ethical from a libertarian perspective) to earn income from your ideas if your product is good and generates value, in addition to the advantages it offers in terms of innovation and free competition compared to the current perspective. Of course, two remarkable things: this perspective I defend isn't perfect and can't guarantee that you will obtain profits equal to or greater than those obtained by owning a temporary monopoly, but I believe it is the best and we can improve it
This is a very good point you make. If the creation or invention is valuable enough, it should “win” in a free market competition against lessor products or designs. Thus, no need for monopoly imposed by law or regulation.
I suppose many factors influence this, but in the long run it is like this... natural monopolies fall and innovation will always win