Honestly, your rebuttal is equally very well written that it could have been posted as a top level comment by itself. I now fully understand why there was a ne

Honestly, your rebuttal is equally very well written that it could have been posted as a top level comment by itself. I now fully understand why there was a need for an originalist basis. The majority thinks that intangible property (IP) rights are similar but not equivalent to tangible property rights, but the dissenting opinion believes there is no such distinction -- the two are equivalent. This is the basis for the difference; the difference can thus be attributed to the economic lens through which IP rights is viewed, which is also the same lens they used to revisit and interpret history, so thank you for writing it.