system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I Think Intellectual Property Rights Should Not Apply To Scientific Research

Since intellectual property can be held by multiple people at the same time, one does not have the "right" to it in the sense that if I take it from you you no longer have it.  Therefore, the state cannot be expected to guard a property that cannot be taken away without some other justification.  This justification goes as follows: since there would be no profit in invention if there was no right to exclusivity, we must form a patent office to ensure profitability which then ensures continued incentives for research.  
This argument is essentially passing the buck to the future: we will deny the resource of everyone having access to pre-existing inventions (something I think is obviously useful) because if we do not we will never get anymore new inventions.  It made a lot sense when the patent office was founded and the government realized that the amount of inventions was going to be accelerating rapidly.  The U.S. had also stolen much from Britain and they wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen to their investors.  It became accepted as the right and wise way of business and none could argue the stupendous results that the system produced seeming *ad infinitum*.  
But now we are in an age that can look back over the pat 150 years and find a seemingly infinite amount of knowledge in the past and I think that the utilitarian argument has been reversed.  The advantages of further research are not going to out-weigh the costs of not having access to so much technology from the past.  This is not a certainty by any means, we cannot know what science will discover.  What we do know is that high return technology investment has ensured that research and patent control is kept by giant corporations trying to maximize a buck.  We also know that the best way to do that, in a capitalist system, is through producing high-tech waste, i.e., weapons .  So, even if science does have amazing discoveries to await us, I'm not convinced that they will be that much more useful to humanity than the technology we already have but are not utilizing.  If we remove the profit from patenting new technologies, research will have to be channeled into practical applications in order to be profitable.  As technology is finally applied freely and the ingenuity of the past is revealed, humanity will enter a new golden age.
gpt
research is really expensive.  it costs a lot to research the science and then find applications and then find ways to build those applications.  

what doesnt cost a lot of money is stealing those ways of building things and producing the same item, without haveing to do any of the research for it.  

companies that do this can put a significantly lower pricetag on their items, becuase they didnt have to pay anything up front.  as such, the company who initially created the invention loses a lot of money.  

this cycle means that there is no profit in (or even a way to sustain) a company doing research to find new technology or drugs or whatever the item is.  

if there no IP rights existed, this wouldnt be considered stealing.  it would just be and everyone could and would do it.  and no company would be willing to risk their buisness/employees/money in order to try and research new things.  it just wouldnt happen.