Is it mine?
PO there is no rational entitlement to a monopoly in trade for a maker, creator, inventor or discoverer
I make myself a chair. Is my chair, right? I can enjoyed sitting in my chair, and I have no obligation to anyone else to share the benefits of my chair.
I write some software, invent a widget, and discover the cure for cancer. They are my property, just like the chair. I am entitled to sit on that property – just like the chair – and no one else has any rights to that property. I can run my software, play with my widget, and cure myself of cancer.
So far, so good, although some might think that keeping the cure for cancer to yourself would be immoral or inhumane, but it would seem to be a natural property right, just like my right to exclusive use of my chair.
But typically people who make, create, invent or discover something don't want to keep it to themselves. They don't want to be the sole user of it. Bill Gates didn't create Windows so that he alone could run it. They want to sell it to someone. It is by selling it to someone else that they get value out of what they make, create, invent or discover. Am I entitled to all the value that my property brings when I sell it? Am I entitled to a monopoly is what I made, created, invented or discovered?
The first instinctive answer is yes – it's my property so I'm entitled to all the value. After I'm the one bringing the value to the trade – I'm bringing the cure to cancer; all you are bringing is your pesky cancer tumor.
I'd like to think deeper than that first instinctive answer. Firstly, if no one has a cancer, then my cure for cancer has no value. If no one has a use for my software or my widget, then no one will buy them - and so my property has no value to me in trade. The “customer” brings value to the trade too. If you don;t believe this, try running a business with no customers. It is easier to see the value the customers for a physical object than for a cancer tumor, and it is easier to envisage the value when the customer is a business, so let's consider a business buying a PC.
Suppose the value to a business of deploying a PC is $1000. That means that if they buy a PC for $1000, they break even on the deal. The cost to them equals the gain. They'd be dumb to do it if they had to pay $1,001 for the PC. If they paid $900 for the PC they would gain $100.
If the cost of manufacturing the PC is $600, then there is gain of $400 when the PC is deployed, no matter what the price is. That $400 gain is shared between the manufacturer and the business that buys the PC. The price determines the respective shares of the gain. For the manufacturer to be willing to make the sale the price must be $600 or more. For the buyer to be willing to make the purchase the price must be $1000 or less. Where the price is in the range $600 to $1000 depends on the market power of the seller and the buyer.
If I am the manufacturer of that PC and I am to get all of the value of the sale of my property then the price must be $1000, which means the buyer gets none of the value. That's what a monopoly gives me: the market power to force the price almost to the point that the buyer makes almost no gain. (It needs to be “almost” because a buyer would not bother to make a trade for zero gain.)
If no buyer had a use of that PC that is worth a $1000, then the PC isn't worth $1000. The business buyer is bringing something valuable to the trade besides his money – he is bringing a use for your PC. Without that use, your product is worthless. His use for the PC (or any other product, creation, invention or discovery) is as much as part of the value of it as your creation of it. When you decided to sell the use of your property (and not keep it as your private use property) you are as much dependent on him (or “they” or “society”) sharing their use for your property with you as they are on your sharing property with them.
You are as dependent on some guy sharing his cancer tumor with you and he is on you sharing your cure with him, and therefore I see no reason why you are entitled to 100% of the gain any more than he is.
Therefore: PO there is no rational entitlement to a monopoly in trade for a maker, creator, inventor or discoverer.