>>2185883>Patents might well do more harm than copyrights do.
It depends on the context. I mean yes, there are many patents that prevent or at least slow down the practical application of universally beneficial technology (there are many big and small examples of this, perhaps the most striking are the ones that have to do with medical technology), but on the other hand many of those technologies wouldn't exist in the first place if there wasn't a patent to protect them. The main purpose of patent law is to stimulate private investment in research and development by ensuring that the inventor will have a reasonable stretch of time available to them in which they're the only one who can make use of it and recoup their investment (plus profit, hopefully). If there was no such protection, most companies would have no reason to invest in innovation, because they'd spend money on developing something and once they're done the competition will get to use it for free without that initial investment. The winning strategy would become to literally just sit back and copy the competition whenever they do something that works, and you'll come out on top more often than not because you're taking zero financial risk while the other guy does all the work.
You can apply the same logic to a cartoon. Imagine if a studio pours a lot of cash into a cartoon, and then once everyone loves the cartoon the competition makes new unlicensed episodes, merchandise, etc. They're benefiting from the popularity of the show which only exists because the first studio made a financial commitment, without running the risk that the show flops. In such an environment, studio cartoons could simply not be made because success just means you paid to enrich the competition.
In a perfect world where companies aren't motivated by profit and the act of creating something good is its own reward this wouldn't matter, but that's not the world we live in.