Not to get disputatious, but the tangible/intangible distinction simply relates to whether one can physically touch something and (at least in my mind) has noth

Not to get disputatious, but the tangible/intangible distinction simply relates to whether one can physically touch something and (at least in my mind) has nothing to do with whether something should or should not be a protectible form of property or whether it does or doesn't have value making it worthy of protection. Society, through its laws, must make judgments about what "bundle of rights" it wants to associate with any given form of property and whether recognizing and protecting such bundles of rights will promote individual happiness and social betterment, including economic prosperity. I think the experience we have all seen with IP rights falls decidedly on the side of promoting social betterment as well as individual happiness. The point might be argued to the contrary, but I think the contrary argument is a far weaker case and, in reality, virtually unsustainable (though one can of course argue with more force about limiting individual IP components such as patents).