alt Hacker News>Only scarce things can be property.
Abundant things can be property too. Property is about ownership. Intellectual property is a subcategory of property. It isn't an oxymoron.
>NDA do not protect IPs.
But they do indicate intent.
>someone can "steal" (copy) my beatiful design
I was talking about the physical object. They may think it is of such importance that it should live in a museum instead of as your private property. Other people believe that a museum could preserve it better and they think they know how best the pendant should be used than its actual owner.
> Abundant things can be property too. Property is about ownership.
The legally and ethically relevant concept of ownership is about dealing with mutual exclusivity of material resources and avoiding its conflicts. Abudant things, in this context, do not have mutual exclusivity and, as such, are not ownable in a natural sense.
> But they do indicate intent.
And?
> I was talking about the physical object.
Sure, but we are talking about IPs, not real property, so I fail to see how this example is relevant.