I remember reading that the strength of manufacturing in China is also that everything gets copied and innovation spreads quickly.
AS for the article: The richest countries have strong IP protections, generally, that might indicate something.
Certainly creative trademarks, brands etc. - I don't like Disney but I think they have the right to protect Mickey Mouse so long as they are a viable entity/business.
Drugs ... this is one place where innovation might come to a halt of things could not be protected. I'm aware Unis do a lot of key research, but bringing something to market is hugely expensive.
Also remember a lot of patents are defensive in nature - their only purposes is to prevent trolls. So that's a sad artifact of it all.
No doubt the system needs an overhaul.
The assumption here seems to be that their riches come from IP protections. It could be argued that the IP protections are a result of lobbying from rich companies.
I am not arguing that the causation is wrong, but the implied claim does not follow from the observation.
you have something in the line that correlation is not causation?
So most industrial growth happened after patents were part of commercial practice.
I suggest patents are less important now than they were then at least for what they are supposed to be used for ... patents may be increasing in terms of corporate importance, but more as a general legal asset than anything. Trademarks and copyrights is a whole other thing.
I strongly disagree with that. Just like with patents, the regulative protection must end at some point so the cultural and technological heritage is shared among all descendants, and not just a few lucky. The protection duration is already too long, not too short.