[belorn]

> the legal setup for property is foundational to an economy.

I would agree on that had we not recently had a massive change away from products and property and into service and contracts. Citizens do not own cars, coffee machines, or books. They house devices which they have a licensed permission to use, and it is contract law that rules and not property law.

Patents could also easily be redefined as a contract between state and inventor, where inventor provide knowledge in return for privilege and protection. It doesn't change anything for the economy, but it would remove the need to talk about property and it would imply that the contract could be changed in the future.

[dragonwriter]

Contract-derived interests rely on the parties to the contract having underlying property interests that can be exchanged via contact, so, no, contracts don't get you it off dealing with property law, since they depend on it.

[belorn]

Currently, contract law do not dictate if it can be exchanged. E-books might or might not be transferable, and its currently up to the e-book seller to decide if that is the case. Property law, as far as e-books are property, do not come into effect unless e-book is made to be governed by property rules.

Could you explain how property law comes into effect in this case? If it does not, why could patents not be treated in the exact same and equal way.

[dragonwriter]

Property law is what provides the rights that are then sold by contract; in the case of ebooks, the rights specifically originate in copyright law. That's why the eBook seller had the choice of what rights (including whether or not they are transferable) to include in the contracts by which it transfers some rights to consumers.