You're mixing up "state capitalism" with "free-market capitalism". The former is all we've ever experienced or seen first-hand; the latter is something we've never experienced in the real world on any enduring, wide scale.
A market is by definition the absence of government involvement in the free exchange of products and services (e.g.
Wikipedia summarizes it as "a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or services."). Patent law and copyright law are by definition the government involving itself -- even if both parties do not wish that (i.e. opposite to the "voluntary" element of the exchange).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent"The exclusive right
granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the claimed invention. The rights given to the patentee do not include the right to make, use, or sell the invention themselves. The patentee may have to comply with other laws and regulations to make use of the claimed invention."
Not exactly the kind of deal I'd willfully enter into.
(esp. see also
"exclusive right" -- "...a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and
to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit...")
The state "grants" one party the "exclusive right" to do something, thus preventing (by violent force, natch) others to do the same... But wait! By definition, any right is just a power that is either inherent or delegated (granted) -- and that power not inherent is "granted" TO a party who desires that power, BY another party who already currently possesses that power. So how does the "state" possess that magical "right" of "preventing or excluding" free people from doing peaceful things?
A bit clearer now?
