For an alternate view, see this paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457848 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457848 T

For an alternate view, see this paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457848 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457848 The paper argues that patents recognizing the inventions of vulcanized rubber, sewing machines, and incandescent lightbulbs, for example, were all valuable ideas. Violating these patents would have destroyed the ability of the inventor to profit from the years of work necessary to invent them. The paper further argues that IP rights are a part of basic property rights, perhaps even more essentially so than physical property. Property rights, at least classically, don't say that you can do anything you want with whatever you own. For example, you cannot shoot a random person with a gun and bullet you own because it would violate their rights. The protection of the other person's right to their life is not leading to a violation of your simple property rights. Similarly, this is the reason that traditional analysis of the protection of intellectual property did not view it as a violation of anyone's property rights.