Question

Intellectual property laws are intended to promote innovation, but some economists, such as Milton Friedman, have argued that such laws are not desirable. In the United States, there is no intellectual property protection for food recipes or for fashion designs. Considering the state of these two industries, and bearing in mind the discussion of the inefficiency of monopolies, can you think of any reasons why intellectual property laws might hinder innovation in some cases?

Answer 1

Patents are a form of preserving intellectual property. But due to the issuing of patents to these firms, they do hamper the research which could have prospered at a higher rate had there been transparency of tools, methods, information or even recipes. Intellectual property can have substantial costs in terms of hindering subsequent innovation, so if a small firm finds itself in defense against competitors with giant patent arsenals and litigation budgets. Patent rights might favor only the big companies and firms.

So if an independent designer (Cook) comes up with a unique design (Recipe) by himself/herself and if it happened to be a bit similar to an already made design (recipe), since there might be many cases of 'similar' or 'closely-related' or 'plagiarised' design or recipe. A similarity doesn't necessarily mean that the creator copied it but still he has to face a huge competitor at the court bearing a lot of litigation charges.