What is the fundamental reasoning for the patents? It's not that they benefit the individual who invents something. Patents are granted because it's thought that by benefiting the inventor they will invent more stuff and the whole society benefits. It's basically a utilitarian argument: inventions are great, so we should incentivize people to do more of them.
But that is mostly bullshit.
People come up with ideas all the time. There is no scarcity of ideas. Everybody is full of them. Having an extra incentive to come up with even more ideas is useless for the whole society.
What is more important? The execution of ideas.
If you have an idea but you don't build anything based on it, it's meaningless. From the perspective of the whole society, granting patents for inventions that are never build is waste of resources.
Granting patents for inventions that are badly build is detrimental. Why somebody who can't make a great product should be given a monopoly right to build something if they can't do it? If there are others who can execute the idea better, why they should be prevented from doing it?
Granting patents for inventions that are developed to great products is also waste of resources. If the inventors can make great products, they don't need any extra protection from competition.
If we remove patents, who will get rewarded? Those who actually execute the ideas and make great products and services that customers want to buy voluntarily. When the markets are offering products that people want to buy, we usually have very prosperous society.
Currently, patents are blocking the markets by preventing individuals and firms to building products that people want to have and use. The loss of welfare is huge. And what do we get in exchange? Maybe a few more ideas – but ideas are already so abundant that they will be totally worthless.
