Don't forget the step where you ignore intellectual property law so that it becomes temporarily legal to start companies without a "war chest" of patents to ward off disputes with.
I mean, patents only apply in the nation where they're granted. So "ignoring" IP is just a matter of refusing to recognize foreign patents, which is something that all nations do implicitly.
Also, in most foreign countries, court cases are cheap. (They could literally be 100x cheaper to litigate than they would be in the US.)
If you're talking about in a US context specifically, then if absolutely necessary the federal government could either buy or nationalize the patents in dispute, just as all states nationalize land from time to time under eminent domain. Zvi recently wrote about this in the context of the state buying the Ozempic patent: https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2025/01/21/sleep-diet-exercise-...
> [The US Government] should buy out the patents to such drugs.
> This solves the consumption side. It removes the deadweight loss triangle from lost consumption. It removes the hardship of those who struggle to pay, as we can then allow generic competition to do its thing and charge near marginal cost. It would be super popular. It uses government’s low financing costs to provide locked-in up front cold hard cash to Novo Nordisk, presumably the best way to get them and others to invest the maximum in more R&D.
> There are lots of obvious gains here, for on the order of $100 billion. Cut the check.
>So "ignoring" IP is just a matter of refusing to recognize foreign patents, which is something that all nations do implicitly.
That's not true at all. US companies register patents in all foreign jurisdictions as well. It wasn't legal for Chinese companies to copy all that US IP, they were just able to do it because to stop them, our diplomats would have basically had to persuade the Chinese government not to develop.
