A lot of these posts are very confused. There is nothing wrong with "knockoffs"--this is called "competition." My theory does not ignore Locke at all though I do point out some mistakes he made with his labor theory of value which have led to the erroneous idea of intellectual property (see e.g. LINK /)
I have laid out a careful and systematic explanation of why patent and copyright are nothing but state monopoly privileges that harm people and the economy and are compltely unnecessary and incompatible with property rights, capitalism, and the free market. See my articles and book Against Intellectual Property at www.c4sif.org/resources
If you don't mind, a couple of points of mine:
#1. We seem to be in agreement about Locke's errors.
#2. We are also in agreement that patent and copyright are state monopoly privileges, but without having read all your work, I doubt that you have successfully constructed a systematic case demonstrating that they are both (A) harmful to people and the economy, and (B) "completely unnecessary and incompatible with property rights, capitalism, and the free market."
I would say that you are just flat wrong about (B) by logical consequence, and wrong about (A) based on historical evidence.
But I don't think we're going to get anywhere on an argument about that (since the subject is so complex and impossible to adequately model), so I would just like to turn my attention mostly to this one statement of yours: "There is nothing wrong with 'knockoffs'--this is called 'competition.'"
I would say that there most definitely is something wrong with knockoffs. To some extent, the problem with knockoffs is partly a matter of fraudulent branding, which could be prosecuted with only strong trademark & logo laws, but not necessarily with patent or copyright property rights. (It's actually a little more complicated than this, but I'll pass on that for now.)
But what of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, and "knockoffs" in the sense of products that merely steal IP and attempt to replicate it free of charge? I would argue that a lack of IP enforcement in these areas has a seriously detrimental effect on economic growth too.
Innovation is, after all, the undisputed primary driver of per capita GDP growth, and pioneering firms have no incentive to really push the envelopes without sufficient IP protection. I am aware of how absurd and ridiculous patent litigation can get (going back even to the days of Edison, Bell, Western Electric, Westinghouse, etc.), but despite the absurdities, it is necessary for truly explosive economic growth.
Free market economies are generally dependent upon government monopolies upon the administration of the police and court system to enforce contracts. The 17th century saw the rise of England and Holland based upon government awarded monopolies to the first joint-stock corporations for foreign trade. They also awarded monopolies for inventors in the domestic economy. Even before that, the Italian republics of the Renaissance had awarded patents since the 15th century. Even dismissing their formal patents, their economic system relied upon grants of certain trading routes and patterns by force so as award incentives for various groups to capture profits.
In the 20th century, an enormous amount of technological innovation was driven simply by the ability of the U.S. government to absorb losses and keep trade secrets with respect to military research. Going across to the private sector, even the great Bell Labs was only able to exist due to an artificial government monopoly. Would we have transistors, modern PCs, and superconductivity without them?
Undoubtedly, with the erosion of IP protection, innovation suffers. This can be seen by simply examining the world around us. First, we see that the music and film industries have suffered since the advent of Napster and similar sharing systems online. But you can say that's subjective and artistic. Well okay, then look at medical and other forms of technological innovation. Look at China. Are they ready to innovate? Hell no they're not. And the world suffers as a result of their technological laziness.
The same process occurs in global health care innovation (to say nothing of global military security and global central banking), of which the U.S. shoulders the load while other nations free ride on us. None of these things are ideologically libertarian by nature. They are minarchist, and for continued economic growth, they are necessary.