Why did you choose gold as an example? How about a sword? Claiming that physical and intellectual property are the same is reductionistic at best. The fact that both properties are protected by power doesn't mean that they are the same. Physical property is not copyable. Intellectual property is.
> Im not saying they are the same, and stated as much above.
> I am saying their relation to the government is the same.
Then I don't have anything to object. But I suspect that the above points were clear in your comments. I don't think anybody here would object to the idea that physical property law and IP law have the same legal standing. What people object to are the principles of the IP law.
EDIT: Following up with more analysis of the parent's comments... Indeed the following was clearly stated [0]:
> Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government.
The following example to clarify the above statement muddies the water, though:
> Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law).
Physical property theft deprives the owner absolutely. Whether IP “theft” deprives owner of anything is questionable, even in the legal sense. Regardless, government is “right” to pursue enforcing both laws, because they are laws after all.
>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).
> 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.
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
