Jack Dorsey didn’t mince words. In a four-word tweet—“delete all IP law”—he torched conventional thinking about innovation and intellectual property. Elon Musk chimed in with a simple “I agree.” And just like that, two of tech’s most prominent disruptors opened a Pandora’s box: Is it time to burn down the IP system?
These aren’t your average armchair critics. Between them, Dorsey and Musk have built and led companies rooted in proprietary tech. For them to question the very system that helped build their empires isn’t just bold—it’s a direct challenge to the foundations of modern innovation.
But they’re not alone in asking tough questions. The tension between rapid technological advancement and outdated IP frameworks has never been more palpable. AI models are ingesting copyrighted material en masse. Patent trolls are clogging innovation pipelines. And smaller innovators face an uphill battle against legal and financial gatekeeping.
So—are Jack and Elon really wrong?
The Original Promise of IP—and Where It Went Off Track
Intellectual property law wasn’t born to reward inventors—it was meant to benefit society. The idea was simple: grant a temporary monopoly in exchange for disclosure. The goal wasn’t to create permanent power—it was to make ideas public, so others could learn, adapt, and build upon them.
The Constitution doesn’t talk about profit. It talks about progress: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Personal reward was a fringe benefit. In some cases, it’s even a liability—because today, getting a patent often means stepping into a legal minefield. What was intended as a tool for transparency has become a battleground.
Just look at the data points:
- Apple vs. Samsung spent over $1 billion fighting over smartphone features like rounded corners and swipe gestures. Did that advance technology? Or just delay it?
- Patent trolls like Uniloc and WSOU Investments have weaponized IP law, filing hundreds of lawsuits against startups with limited legal resources. These aren’t about innovation—they’re about extracting settlements.
- The AI copyright wars are heating up. OpenAI, GitHub’s Copilot, and others face lawsuits over training on copyrighted content. The New York Times, Sarah Silverman, Jonathan Franzen, and others have filed suit, arguing their works were mined without consent.
The throughline? Innovators are increasingly punished for innovating
The legal scaffolding meant to encourage disclosure now discourages action through the threat of litigation or ambiguous regulation.
As one critic on X (formerly Twitter), @tyrannideris, put it:
“IP law doesn’t protect creators—it protects gatekeepers. It’s not about rewarding genius. It’s about bottling it, branding it, and turning it into rent-seeking monopoly” (source).
It’s easy to see why voices like Dorsey and Musk are calling to burn it all down. But not everyone agrees that a bonfire is the answer.
“This is just a nonsensical point of view,” countered @Fergieplusjesus.
“Why would any company invest in R&D if they can’t protect the results of that investment? You’d be incentivizing companies to copy, not innovate” (source).
And @stingerdelux added:
“Cool idea, until you realise the ones yelling ‘delete IP’ already have empires built on IP. Let’s not pretend copyright is the enemy when it built half the tech and culture we use daily. Reform? Sure. Bonfire? Careful what you burn” (source).
Even within academic circles, the debate is far from settled
Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School has argued that the current IP system is too broad and too easily abused, but also acknowledges that some IP rights remain essential—especially in sectors like biotech and pharmaceuticals, where the costs are high and development timelines are long.
See: Mark Lemley, “The Surprising Resilience of the Patent System,” 2020, Stanford Law School.
https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-surprising-resilience-of-the-patent-system
On the opposite end of the spectrum, economist Michele Boldrin argues that:
“Intellectual monopoly is not a necessary evil. It is an unnecessary evil.”
—Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (Cambridge University Press, 2008)
He contends that IP protections harm innovation and hinder economic progress, especially when used to block competition or lock up knowledge.
IP law is failing many of the people it was designed to protect. But gutting it entirely could also collapse the incentives that drive meaningful innovation in the first place.
So maybe the solution isn’t to delete IP law entirely. Maybe we need to reimagine it for an age where information moves at the speed of code, collaboration is global, and the real enemy isn’t copying—it’s stagnation.
maybe the system isn’t fit for purpose anymore
The pace of innovation today is relentless. Generative AI can draft novel concepts in seconds. Open-source projects span continents. Collaborations form overnight across academia, industry, and independent creators.
And yet, our IP system still runs on 19th-century assumptions:
- That ideas emerge in isolation.
- That ownership is simple and binary.
- That protecting something means hiding it behind legal barriers.
This is increasingly incompatible with how innovation actually works.
In AI development, for example, progress is built on remixing, repurposing, and reinterpreting existing ideas. It’s fluid and layered. Who owns a machine-generated concept based on thousands of human-made works? The person who prompted it? The developer of the AI model? The artist whose portfolio was scraped for training data? Just ask Stability AI or Midjourney—both now facing lawsuits over exactly that.
These aren’t just legal questions—they’re cultural, ethical, and economic ones. And right now, the law doesn’t have good answers.
Meanwhile, innovators in fields like biotech, semiconductors, and clean energy face complex, multi-year patent thickets—dense webs of overlapping claims that make it nearly impossible to launch a product without infringing on something. The result? Long delays, steep licensing fees, and a chilling effect on R&D—especially for newcomers.
In response, some are opting out altogether—turning to defensive publication, relying on trade secrets, or moving fast and risking litigation. Dorsey and Musk are simply voicing what many are already thinking: maybe the system isn’t fit for purpose anymore.
Ready to Take Control of Your IP Strategy?
Whether or not IP law should be “deleted,” there’s no denying it needs a radical rethinking.
More transparency. Less weaponization. More tools for creators at every level—not just those with legal teams on retainer. And perhaps a broader cultural shift: from hoarding ideas to sharing them responsibly. From slow litigation to fast collaboration.
Dorsey and Musk didn’t propose a solution. But maybe that’s the point.
Their job, as disruptors, is to ask uncomfortable questions. Ours is to wrestle with the answers—and begin building something better.
That’s already happening in parts of the innovation world. Organizations are beginning to take a more nuanced, adaptive approach to IP—one that blends invention with agility. Strategic defensive publishing is on the rise as a way to protect ideas without the burden of full patent prosecution. And more teams are leveraging integrated tools that connect ideation, evaluation, and IP strategy into AI-powered workflows.
Solutions like the Innovation Power Suite® from IP.com are helping innovators rethink protection. Whether through structured ideation, intelligent invention evaluation, or smart prior art publication, these tools offer a more responsive approach to the way innovation actually works today.
We don’t need to burn it all down.
But we do need to design an IP system that moves as fast as innovation does.