Patents. The classical government-granted monopoly. Incidentally the only type of undefeatable monopoly. Created with the best intentions, of course: to “encourage innovation”.
Most initiatives are not purely good without any downsides. A principle to consider is: Just because there are some negative aspects sometimes, do those outweigh the good? In this case, how many negatives actually come from patent law? (Btw, a monopoly most often is not the result - there are often many solutions to a similar problem/need.). And consider the side of the creator (which I’ve been finding is surprisingly rare in hn) - creating a company and product is already incredibly hard, how much harder do we want to make that? What and who are we sacrificing?
Maybe we just adjust the patent law some. Decrease the number of years? I’m sure it could be better.