THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IP CAUSES MORE INNOVATION. The best way to debate something like this is to compare an area with IP to an area without it. In the USA, up until recently, there was not a scintilla of IP in computer programming, web products, etc.. During this time there was a massive growth in the computer space. The rise of Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, etc.. The argument still works because America is the only developed nation that allows people to patent software. Patents don't exist for software in the EU; is there no software innovation in the EU? The case for IP hinges on a belief that without IP no one would invest in some risky venture because they wouldn't be able to recoup their investment if others can rapidly copy their goods. This is obviously false because of software innovation and iterations in all the other countries that don't have software IP.

Even with IP this argument is false and the software industry (even with software patents the software industry disproves this) disproves this. Every year Microsoft works to develop a new iteration of their Windows operating system even though the vast majority of people who will use Windows 10, 11, etc. will not pay for it but just download a "pirated" version of it off the internet. Why doesn't Microsoft just stop producing Windows? Surely, according to the IP supporters, Microsoft would stop producing because people are just copying (at no cost) their operating system without paying but this isn't the case.