IP proponents should address these questions:

Why should the concept “IP” be treated like real property?
Why do IP proponents argue for term limits?
Why should pattern designers in other fields than literature, music, arts etc. (eg garden designers, cooks, hairdressers, stage performers etc.) not be privileged the same way as these (with copyright, patents and so on)?
Were do rights to information (aka IP) end? How far do they go? Think about that statement:

A. J. Galambos, bless his anarchoheart, attempted to take copyrights and patents to their logical conclusion. Every time we break a stick, Ug The First should collect a royalty. Ideas are property, he says; madness and chaos result.

http://blog.mises.org/16319/the-origins-of-libertarian-ip-abolitionism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MisesBlog+%28Mises+Economics+Blog%29

Why should an “IP rights” holder be in the right to exclude others from using his “property” outside their bodies but not inside (eg excluding speaking about a story but not thinking about it)?

Or doesn’t all the above matter because only laws count?