	The faults of intellectual property law implementation did not go unnoticed. In fact several opponents have risen to attempt to abolish many copyright laws. Some of the most notable adversaries of the patent system were Robert MacFie and William Armstrong. MacFie was the president of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and a sugar tycoon. He campaigned for copyright abolition mainly through printing speeches and debates from him and his allies, and encouraged his readers to use his collection, while only citing the original sources not himself. This abolitionist movement rested its case in philosophical claims regarding the nature of invention. The members declared that inventors were not special and only “drew on a universal reservoir of knowledge,” thus they were able to justify the occurrence of simultaneous inventions as non-malicious happening of chance. They made it distinct, however, from “simultaneous authorship,” which was clearly almost impossible since no two literary or artistic authors could claim to write the exact same text. The argument boils down to a clear distinction between the liberal arts and the sciences. This social stance paints inventors to have little sense of creativity,
Another interesting argument the abolitionists posed was that of so-called “schemers,” people who neglected their jobs in pursuit of a one-hit-wonder invention per-se. Hence, the argument here was that patents did not hinder inventors but rather over-stimulated their population and this would lead to non-worthwhile pursuits that hinder the advancement of society. This may have been true had it not been for the rigorous reviews by committees assigned to evaluate the novelty and usefulness of inventions to which patents are assigned. Thus, so called schemers were weeded out by genuine innovators.
It is important then to recognize the rise of Laisse-fare capitalist ideals during this time. It seemed tyrannical to the abolitionists to have the government grant monopolies over entire trades and even over mechanical contraptions. Those such as Macfie called for a “fair trade” to be installed, which would make it easier for the common use of inventions. His election to Parliament in 1868, concerned the scientists who according to The Scientific Review had no representation in government. Among these scientists were Henry Bessemer and William Siemens, who had threatened to leave and take their much thought after inventions to the Americas where their patent rights would be protected. This really shows how competitive nationalism fueled the competitive economic race of the industrial revolution. 
In the end while the implementation of Intellectual Property law has had its critics, it is far more useful than detrimental. While arguments have arose that patenting laws have inhibited the progress of real innovation and progress and only made ways for people creating useless machinery that only benefits the patentee, but that has proven inherently untrue. While patent law does provide incentive for creators to invent more and possibly leave their traditional jobs, it is for the overall benefit of society. As historical data proved, more patents correlated to a more industrious time. Thus, it seems that patent law has been far more concerned with technological aspects of science rather than purely academic ones. The state of political action, economic growth, and overall social atmosphere has helped shape the state of patent law and intellectual property rights.
