They introduced more and more IP laws due to requirements from the WTO[https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/acc_e/completeacc_e.htm...]. At first they didn't prosecute them, then they did but only for foreign companies, and now we're at the stage where there's essentially legal parity.

Basically they had to play along to western rules that were baked into global institutions. But now they're getting to the point that they can start to lead the conversation.

Some further reading [0] could be a book like To Steal Is An Elegant Offense from William P. Alford for a longer history of the relationship to IP within Chinese society.

0: https://www.sup.org/books/asian-studies/steal-book-elegant-o...

There is a huge difference between "some protection" and blocking the competition for many decades, because an incompetent patent office has approved many exaggerated claims, either about things that are obvious and well known by anyone in the field, but nobody was shameless enough to claim them in a patent before, or else about things that the patent filer is completely unable to do in the present, but they are claimed in the patent for the case when someone else will figure how to do them in the future.

Today the vast majority of patents are not intended for any kind of licensing and they might be even completely useless if licensed, but they are only intended for preventing competition in the market where the patent owner is active.

In order to be useful, a patent system should start to require again that the inventor shows a working prototype that demonstrates all the features claimed in the patent. Moreover, the patents should expire much faster, certainly not later than after 10 years from being issued. Perhaps a longer validity could be accepted for patents owned by individual inventors, but in any case not for the patents assigned to the employers of the inventors, as most patents are today. Also, patent owners should offer "Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory licensing" (FRAND), otherwise the patent should be invalidated.

Yet china's economy where IP isn't respected seems to contradict your point. Why doesn't that counterexample make you change your mind on this?

Except that you have the technical know how to keep advancing, and have already been producing them before they hit market an have been reverse engineered.

Also a lot of research is already done at, or in cooperation of universities, or with research tax breaks.

Let alone the fact that a lot of patents are absolute bullshit. There are patents on UI elements, even black rubber handles with a hand grip. Not white ones, mind you. It’s insanity and stifles innovation.

But if patents and trademarks and copyright are so incredibly important for innovation, I guess that’s why stuff like math and theoretical physics has the lowest amount of innovation, right?

> Everything is an artificial protection by your standard. Laws are written for a reason.

No it isn't and this comes across as a straw man. Competing on price, build quality, distribution, aesthetic, service support etc etc are all very real.

> Why would anyone sink huge amounts of money into developing IP if a competitor can just wait and then take it for itself.

How/why did we ever develop anything prior to 1710? And we can add first movers advantage to the list of "real" protections, as well as prestige, marketing etc.

> And if its such a good idea, why hasn't China been a superpower for so long?

Define superpower here? It seems to me that Western powers became global powers first because of colonialism, which A) was driven by materials not by IP, and B) caused direct harm to China.

> China has risen by replicating the West's technology and techniques. Where would China right now be without the West?

Was China in a bad position before the Europeans arrived? Since the Opium Wars they've been forced to play along or risk being wiped out completely. Where could they be without the west indeed.

> Suddenly China is going excel at something at something they haven't done?

Haven't they? It seems that they are very competitive for a host of practical manufacturing reasons that could have been implemented elsewhere if there had been a will or long term vision.

> Japan is instructive because they rose economically in a similar fashion.

Japan was completely neutered and propped up by the US for half a century while they "recovered." It's not a comparable situation.

> there is strong evidence that freedom and a cosmopolitan society promotes innovation.

Is there? Did Britain become a superpower because of its free and cosmopolitan society? Is being a superpower our end goal?

> Which system is better isn't hard to spot. The naivete of some here is incredible.

This isn't an argument at all, just an ad hominem not in keeping with site guidelines. I'm happy to discuss but strawmen and as hominems are very off-putting.