It's amazing how poorly people can use reason. The author is a good example. He feels that if he can make an analogy -- however strained it might be -- that he has won his point.

Obviously he's wrong. An idea is not physical property. He gives a passing nod to the founding fathers but fails to mention any part of the debate that led to the copyright/patent clause. Jefferson, for one, says that it is ridiculous to treat an idea as if it existed in the physical world. That's why they settled for "limited monopoly" -- because they recognized that you can only live in a fantasy world for so long.

I guess if I had to answer this guy directly -- the question posed in his headline -- I might say:

Great ideas do not live forever. They need to evolve and have the benefit of other minds to hack at them, to improve them. Ask Walt Disney. He took the ideas in the stories of the Brothers Grimm -- horrifying stories, if you've ever read them -- and made them new, as well as palatable. Every idea has its time, and its author does deserve a short monopoly as a congratulations. Then it's others' turn. And in my book, that limited time is very, very short: perhaps five years, perhaps even less.

Ideas benefit from hacking. If we want to stifle creativity and innovation, we should freeze them in time with laws. If our aim is the opposite, then we should consider giving them lives of their own. You're right: ideas live. But things can only live if you are willing to give them freedom.