> ...we can't just decide that property rights can be ignored when they're cheap to exploit (like copyright or patent infringement). That's not the argument ag

> ...we can't just decide that property rights can be ignored when they're cheap to exploit (like copyright or patent infringement). That's not the argument against IP. The argument is that IP isn't a thing as such. When you are copying ideas, the originator of the idea can eat his cake while you bake your own (literally). The crime (again, sometimes literally) is that you disrupted someone's monopoly, not that you took their car so they don't have a car anymore. The whole concept of intellectual property is that it's supposed to be a win-win; limited monopolies are granted to encourage creation and innovation, and the public benefits from the innovations and the growing public domain. If, as proposed, rent seeking in the form of IP protection is causing wealth imbalances, then the bargain is probably a net good for the monopoly holder and a net bad for the public. If that is the case, the terms of the bargain should be revisited. The types of patents granted, how strict the process is, how soon things enter public domain, the terms of "fair use", and other things might need to be relaxed to make the deal fairer to the general public.