[s1artibartfast]

>Whether IP “theft” deprives owner of anything is questionable, even in the legal sense.

I think this is certainly settled in the legal sense. If an employee publishes source code to a product, or someone leaks a new movie, the courts dont have to debate if the owner has a legitimate grievance.

People can debate hypothetical alternatives to IP and their implications, but the status quo is clear. If you are using "questionable" not to mean uncertain, but in the literal sense, then sure (anything is questionable).

[laserlight]

> If an employee publishes source code to a product

What if that product has been obsolete for a long time? It is possible that there is no harm in an IP infringement case, whereas in property theft the amount of harm incurred is the property itself at the minimum. The amount of harm, if any, is questioned by the court.

[s1artibartfast]

I am not at all opposed to IP reform as a general concept. There are a million corner cases, and I agree many of them should be re-examined. For example, I think the criteria for fundamental software patents should be set more conservatively.

Another consideration is use it or lose it provisions, although I am much more on the fence on this. It would essentially destroy patents which have multiple embodiments, but might make sense for literature.

I am mostly responding to the idea of tossing IP in general, Which I think is misguided. There are countless ways in which this could cause great harm and essentially gut creators in favor of manufacturers or marketers