I’m debating ip rights with a libertarian in this subreddit , he makes the following comment on IP rights :

I am sorry, but you are speaking in favor of a regulation allowing people to monopolize ideas, while I am speaking against it. Statists (including Marxists) seek to lead the economy to the “moral” outcome by regulating it, while capitalists like me reject this approach completely. Making sure that productive efforts are always rewarded is not capitalism. Capitalism is making sure that people can partake in voluntary economical exchanges without third parties interfering in them; what they then do with this freedom is up to them to decide. Capitalism does not guarantee that your massive intellectual effort will make you rich; it merely guarantees that no one has the claim to the product of that effort. Anyone is free to replicate that product on their own and do something with it, and if that bankrupts you, then too bad: you made a poor investment, it happens.

I’ve tried my best to put forth arguments for IP rights , but would like to hear arguments for ip rights from objectivists .

Ayn Rand makes the claim:

The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.

This can only be accomplished by the government introducing force to prevent people using their own private raw materials to produce something of value. Ayn Rand even recognizes the danger of this approach, leading her to a rare instance of using a pragmatic argument over a principled one.

Since intellectual property rights cannot be exercised in perpetuity, the question of their time limit is an enormously complex issue. . . . In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911, which established the copyright of books, paintings, movies, etc. for the lifetime of the author and fifty years thereafter.

Why is 50 years after death “the most rational”? Why not 40, or 60? If you believe that intellectual property can be inherited at all, then Ayn Rand is actually making an argument that the public good is more important than the individual right of indefinite ownership.

If someone inherits a piece of land, do they have to give it up to the public 50 years after the original owner died? Of course not, because unlike intellectual property, physical possessions have the attribute of scarcity.

By endorsing Britain’s Copyright Act, Ayn Rand is acknowledging that private property and intellectual property should not be governed the same way. It makes sense that anyone who invents something should be able to produce their invention, but I don’t see a principled argument why someone else shouldn’t use their materials and knowledge and labor to produce the same thing.

There are still plenty of competitive advantages to inventing something first, although some business models would have to change if IP wasn’t enforced. It’s also clear how the patent system can be abused to create monopolies, especially with drug companies making minor molecular edits just to keep the patent.

Do you think Ayn Rand is consistent/correct on her stance?