But things never were that complex, especially in hi-tech sector. To invent new device you need dozens, if not hundreds of technicians and scientist and it cost tens of millions of dollars and without copyrights or patents any other company can copy your invention for free. So why any company would even bother spending such enormous amount of money if they can just wait until someone else invent this?
Companies would spent large amounts of money if they expected to see even greater returns as a result of that expenditure. Again, being able to profit off of an invention does not require exclusivity. A company could see gains through their research resulting in a process at the company becoming much more efficient; other companies could copy the invention and realize similar gains in productivity, but this would not diminish the gains that the original company saw. Even in the cases of inventions intended to be sold as products, other companies selling it doesn't preclude the original inventing company from selling it, plus the initial time advantage on tooling up production, along with the advantage of in-house expertise (from having invented the thing) would still grant the original company a natural competitive advantage for a period of time. Then there are alternative business models for things that are easily copied, such as selling expert support rather than the product (like Red Hat and Canonical have done).
Also, before you argue further, you should know this about me: I currently work as a research chemist in the pharmaceutical industry. If there were no patents the pharma industry as it currently exists would not be able to continue and I'd be looking at a major shake-up in my employment opportunities. However, while the pharma industry as it currently exists
wouldn't be able to continue this doesn't mean that no new drugs would be made- as long as there is demand people would find ways to fund new drug development efforts (whether this meant government funding or something else entirely). Also, I think there's a good chance that any new system could end up being quite a bit more efficient than the current system that pharma companies operate within (which I can tell you, from an insider's view, is a fucking mess).
Now, I think I need to emphasize yet again that I do think copyrights and patents can be a net benefit and can be a good tool for spurring innovation, but that the current system of copyrights and patents is so fucked up that it's causing a tremendous amount of damage, to the point that I don't think there would be a big difference in the overall effect on creativity and innovation between the current system vs having no patents or copyrights. I think that a heavily reformed system, with greatly reduced copyright lengths, a much narrower scope of what can be patented, and greater allowances for fair use would be far superior to either the extreme we currently have or the extreme of not having any copyrights or patents.