Intellectual Property laws often come under fire for being slow, restrictive, or favoring incumbents. But what happens if we strip them away completely? Jack Dorsey recently tweeted, “delete all IP law” sparking a larger debate about whether IP helps or hurts innovation. At the heart of it: IP isn't about gatekeeping — it's about making risk-taking and invention viable in the real world. ### 1. **IP is Return-Seeking, Not Rent-Seeking** IP laws create a path for innovators to recover the time and capital they risk. Patents aren't a capitalist indulgence — they are essential signals to investors. Without the promise of exclusivity, there’s no justification for the time, money, and uncertainty needed to pursue deeptech breakthroughs. No patent? No moat. No moat? No money. ### 2. **Without IP, We Lose the Bridge from Science to Product** The Bayh-Dole Act is a case in point. Passed in 1980, it allowed universities to retain rights over federally funded research. This single policy shift generated over 100,000 patents and 13,000 startups. Take mRNA vaccines — built on decades of NIH research — which only reached the market because IP protections made commercialization and funding possible. Strip IP, and we’re left with dead science collecting dust. ### 3. **Even Elon Plays the IP Game** Though Elon Musk once claimed to "open source" Tesla’s patents, this was more branding than surrender. Tesla holds 3,000+ patents, SpaceX protects trade secrets like state secrets, and Neuralink has a growing IP fortress. IP isn’t just a shield — it’s a sword used to raise capital and delay fast followers. Even Musk wouldn’t fund Musk without IP. --- ### So What? Calls to “delete IP” may sound radical and freeing, but they ignore the harsh physics of innovation: no one funds what everyone can instantly copy. Instead of burning down the house to evict bad actors, we need smarter IP policy — reforms, not revolutions. If you want more vaccines, rockets, and radical tech, you don’t dismantle the IP system. You make it work better.