And here we have the "crux of the biscuit" (thank you, Frank Zappa). The anti-IPR faction will not, or perhaps cannot, distinguish between "ideas" and the "unique expression of ideas" that constitutes that defensible pattern. It is a product (something that is produced by the combination of labor and knowledge of its owner, the author). That product is not the book you bought at the bookstore, it's the pattern that is the template for the book that is the intellectual property.

Sadly only the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution amounts to a flat out, nearly unambiguous statement of individual rights, comparable to what is found in the non-legal Declaration of Independence. So in order to secure the right of private property despite its neglect in the U. S Constitution, supporters have decided to try to convert the First Amendment to one that defends private property rights. But this tactic has proven to be muddled and confusing and, ultimately, disingenuous.

So the equality that the American Founders identified about human beings makes perfectly good sense: however much they all differ--however unequal they may be in their talents, opportunities, physical prowess, wealth, health, and beauty--they are equal in having fundamental, unalienable individual human rights to their lives, liberty, pursuit of happiness and many others not possible to list.