Yet, even if the benefits of patents do not entirely offset the early adoption costs they impose, it would be wrong to entirely exclude ideas from private property protections. Would we extend an elimination of patent rights to copyright laws?

Though private property provides the most efficient macro allocation of resources, it cannot be said to do so in every situation. Property owners may choose uses that are suboptimal from a macro stand-point based on their personal preferences. That is within their discretion and is why we call it \"private\" property, we protect their right to make those decisions.

An evaluation of patents rights must be made in same context. We can identify and measure the efficiencies or impediments they create, but in the end we must acknowledge a right is a right.

What becomes arbitrary is the period over which these rights should extend. What becomes problematic is the definition of patentable ideas. Do we limit patents to a more narrower set of innovations, or do extensions of previous ideas to new applications qualify? Who draws the line and on what basis?

The authors here should consider an article on the role of public utilities in the United States, and how their government-granted monopoly affects the rate of innovation in clean energy technology as well as energy conservation.