[FJim]

Intellectual property absolutely is rent-seeking. It brings the full weight of government to enforce an artificial monopoly, for the pragmatic end of encouraging the creation of works of art and technological advances.

The idea that one party can prevent another from exploiting a novel idea (which may have been arrived at independently) does not come out of ethics or natural law. It is a (seemingly) useful legal construct which seems to have served us as a society fairly well.

It is perfectly reasonable to challenge the idea, however, if it is no longer serving us. For instance, consider fashion and the law -- two creative industries which have no such protection and within which imitation is a measure of your success.

[roel_v]

Uhm, no it's not, that's such an obviously wrong interpretation and use of the concept as commonly used amongst economists and policy makers that I don't think it's reasonable to expect a 'real' counterargument to you claim.

Re: "For instance, consider fashion and the law -- two creative industries which have no such protection and within which imitation is a measure of your success.", I have no idea what you're talking about. Gucci and Prada are some of the most prolific enforcers of their IP rights. Counterfeit designer clothing is a huge problem and an area where IP rights enforcement is stronger than in e.g. the music industry.

Your point of imitation in the law creative industry I don't understand to counter on its content. How do people infringe on others' IP rights in the legal industry? How does one in that industry imitate others, or achieve success when one is imitated?