> I was hoping there might be an interesting double standard. Like, thoughts are sacred and their manifestations aren't.

There's an intriguing idea.  Perhaps: the more obviously connected in origin to a human being, the more sacred?  And the more connected to abstract hierarchies (e.g., a company) the more profane?

Although I can immediately think of examples that violate it.

I expect there's something to your idea, but it's super nuanced, just like [Terry Regier's work](https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262527309/the-human-semantic-potential/) showed the underlying sensibility of why prepositions work the way they do.

elvismercury

I highly recommend the work of Stephan Kinsella on IP. 

He’s a patent attorney and after years of trying to justify IP philosophically, he concluded that it just isn’t justifiable. 

Undisciplined

I expect people get the results they want to get.

Good catch. That was my sense too which is probably why it's such a political thing.

It seems that corporations benefit disproportionately from IP, at the expense of the inventor, but maybe that's hard to appreciate.

I was hoping there might be an interesting double standard. Like, thoughts are sacred and their manifestations aren't.

mostly_harmless

Thoughts on the exoself

>  I expect people get the results they want to get.

Good catch. That was my sense too which is probably why it's such a political thing.

It seems that corporations benefit disproportionately from IP, at the expense of the inventor, but maybe that's hard to appreciate.

I was hoping there might be an interesting double standard. Like, thoughts are sacred and their manifestations aren't.