>I've always found the idea "ip laws encourage innovation" to be tenuous; if only because we have very few case studies of societies where ip laws aren't as strong as they are today (so, in scientific method terms, there is no control group). If anything, China may be one of these case studies, and while its certainly a highly debatable topic, I think its reasonable to say that they're doing alright (certainly not by western IP laws standards, but that's the point).
Actually we have a pretty good case study. Patent laws for pharmaceuticals. Before much of the world-wide "harmonisation" of patent law, different countries allowed for very different patentability of pharmaceutical "recipes". In all of Europe and Switzerland up to the 1930s (or possibly even later) therapeutical agents were excluded from patenting (although companies tried to get around this in various ways), in the US on the other hand no such provision existed. However, the vast majority of innovation/inventions came from Europe, also the investment in R&D was much higher in Europe than in the US.
All this to support your assertion that the idea that "ip laws encourage innovation" is tenuous.
While we don't have great controlled experiments, we do have some historical data to view. Here are some of my suggestions;
The Soviet Union had no way for individuals to benefit from innovation. So in most spheres they lagged the West in technological advancement. One area which did have rewards (in standard of living), rocketry, they were ahead.
During WW2 many private companies developed weapons etc for private gain. Especially in the air. While there were talented designers in the USSR, again, overall they lagged behind. I'm not saying none - there were other rewards in play - but as a proportion of population, progress overall seems slow.
If I had to hypothesise I'd say than IP laws encourage innovation via competition, whereas non-IP areas focus on innovation through cooperation - for societal not individual benefit.
Actually we have a pretty good case study. Patent laws for pharmaceuticals. Before much of the world-wide "harmonisation" of patent law, different countries allowed for very different patentability of pharmaceutical "recipes". In all of Europe and Switzerland up to the 1930s (or possibly even later) therapeutical agents were excluded from patenting (although companies tried to get around this in various ways), in the US on the other hand no such provision existed. However, the vast majority of innovation/inventions came from Europe, also the investment in R&D was much higher in Europe than in the US.
All this to support your assertion that the idea that "ip laws encourage innovation" is tenuous.