I spend a lot of time in the Bitcoin community. I run a node. I mine with solar power. I believe in self-custody, sound money, and individual sovereignty. I understand the instinct to distrust centralized systems — including the legal system that governs intellectual property.
So when I hear people argue that IP shouldn’t exist — that patents, trademarks, and copyrights are just government-granted monopolies that stifle innovation — I get where they’re coming from. I’ve read the arguments. I respect the philosophy. But I disagree with it. And I don’t disagree from the sidelines. I disagree as someone who holds a U.S. patent, owns a federal trademark, has registered copyrights, and is currently building a legal technology platform from scratch.
This isn’t theory for me. It’s my life.
The Argument Against IP
The anti-IP position, popular in libertarian and anarcho-capitalist circles, goes something like this: ideas aren’t scarce resources. You can’t “own” an idea the way you own a piece of land or a Bitcoin. When the government grants a patent or a copyright, it’s creating an artificial monopoly — using force to prevent other people from using information that could otherwise flow freely. In a truly free market, innovation would thrive without IP protection because competition and reputation would be enough.
It’s a clean argument. It’s internally consistent. And it completely falls apart when you try to build something in the real world.
What Actually Happens Without IP Protection
I founded The OC Recording Company in 2005. Over the past 20 years, I’ve produced music for Netflix, Grammy-winning artists, Gold Records, JBL/NBA, Power Rangers, Penguin Random House, Simon & Schuster, Blizzard Entertainment, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. I’ve composed, engineered, and produced over 166 original instrumentals that I license through my catalog.
Every single one of those productions exists because copyright law gives me the ability to control how my work is used and get paid for it. Without that protection, any studio with a bigger budget could take my compositions, slap their name on them, and sell them. Any streaming platform could distribute my music without paying a cent. The 20 years I spent developing my craft, building my sound, and investing in equipment — all of that becomes a gift to whoever has the resources to exploit it.
That’s not a free market. That’s a market where the biggest player wins by default, and the independent creator gets nothing.
My Patent Changed Everything
I hold a U.S. patent for microphone stand technology that I invented. I went through the process — the research, the prototyping, the patent application, the legal fees, the waiting. It wasn’t cheap and it wasn’t fast. But that patent means that if a major manufacturer decides to copy my design, I have legal recourse. Without it, a company with a factory in China and a distribution network I could never match could replicate my invention overnight and sell it for less than I could ever produce it.
The anti-IP crowd would say: “Good. Let the market decide. If your product is better, people will buy yours.” But that ignores how markets actually work. Consumers don’t always know who invented what. They buy what’s available, what’s cheapest, and what’s marketed best. A patent doesn’t give me a monopoly — it gives me a fighting chance.
CaseDesk™ and Why I Wouldn’t Build Without Protection
Right now, I’m developing CaseDesk™, a legal technology platform. I’m investing significant time, energy, and resources into building something that I believe will add real value to the legal industry. I’m writing code, designing workflows, testing features, and thinking through problems that don’t have obvious solutions.
Would I be doing this without IP protection? Honestly — probably not. Or at least not with the same level of commitment. Because here’s the reality: software is easy to copy. If I build something innovative and a well-funded competitor can legally clone it, rebrand it, and undercut me on price, then my investment was for nothing. My months of development become their afternoon of copying.
IP protection — through trademarks, copyrights, and potentially patents — is what makes it rational for a solo developer or a small team to invest in building something new. Take that away, and the only people who can afford to innovate are the people who can also afford to lose. That’s not a world that favors the little guy. That’s a world that favors the incumbent.
The Irony of the Bitcoin Argument
Here’s what I find ironic about the anti-IP position in Bitcoin circles: the entire Bitcoin ecosystem depends on open-source software, which is itself a form of IP licensing. The MIT License, the GPL, Creative Commons — these are all built on top of copyright law. Satoshi could release Bitcoin as open-source software precisely because copyright law gave him the right to choose how his work was distributed. Without copyright, there’s no such thing as an open-source license, because there’s no underlying right to license.
You can’t have open-source without IP law. The freedom to share your work freely is only meaningful if you also have the freedom to restrict it. One doesn’t exist without the other.
I Don’t Love the System. I Just Live in It.
I’m not here to tell you the IP system is perfect. It’s not. Patent trolls are real. Copyright terms are absurdly long. The cost of enforcement is prohibitive for most small creators. The system favors those who can afford lawyers — and as a lawyer myself, I’m painfully aware of that irony.
But the solution isn’t to abolish IP. The solution is to fix it. Shorter terms. Faster enforcement. Lower barriers for independent creators. Better tools for proving originality and ownership — and yes, blockchain technology could play a major role in that future.
I believe in Bitcoin because it gives individuals control over their money without relying on institutions. I believe in IP for the same reason — it gives creators control over their work without relying on the goodwill of competitors. Both systems are imperfect. Both are better than the alternative.
The Bottom Line
If you’ve never built anything original — never invented a product, never composed a song, never written software from scratch, never invested years of your life into creating something that didn’t exist before — then it’s easy to argue that IP shouldn’t exist. It’s a comfortable philosophical position when you have nothing to protect.
But when you’ve poured two decades into building a studio, earned a patent through years of effort, and you’re staying up late writing code for a platform you believe in — IP protection isn’t an abstract debate. It’s the reason you keep building.
I’m not asking anyone to love the government. I’m asking you to acknowledge that without some form of IP protection, the independent creator, the solo inventor, and the small builder get crushed by anyone with more money and fewer scruples. And in a world that claims to value individual sovereignty, that should matter.
Asaf David Fulks is an Associate Attorney at Sellar Hazard & Lucia LLP, founder of Asaf Fulks Law and The OC Recording Company, and a U.S. patent holder. He can be reached at asaf@asaffulkslaw.com.