"Besides the utilitarian argument, thoroughly in favor of deposing IP law, there's also the natural law argument: if property is from the natural law, then why haven't the vast majority of civilizations throughout history acknowledged intellectual property along side it? Why is it a very recent invention?
Relatively speaking, the complete end of legalized slavery in the west, suffrage, child labor laws, etc. are "recent inventions." How long the idea has been around is irrelevant.
Moreover, what constitutes ownership, and how can one 'own' an 'idea'? If ideas are ephemeral universals, they must be owned by all, as one could only discover and distribute ownership: there would be no way to scarcity in the economic sense, and thus no way to lock it down as a given person's. If ideas are only present in each mind, be it as universals or as particulars or as illusions, they must be re-created in each person's mind from external stimuli. If it is their creation, and if its removal depends upon aggressing (lobotomizing) them, then it is theirs wholly simply by knowing it."
Your argument is really odd. On one hand its a "everyone owns everything" communist mentality, but you rationalize it because it would supposedly increase competition, which is a free market idea. Well you don't increase competition by letting someone be lazy and steal code, and then repackage Relic's hard work with different icing on the top to cut in to their market. They don't own the rights to WW2 RTS, cover system, vet, or any other concepts in their game. If someone else wants to compete and develop a COH clone under a new title that would be great, but they better get their own art assets, engine, etc. Ripping off 95% of someone elses hard work just to improve the shitty 5% would be so pathetic, thank god for intellectual property laws.