Professor Bainbridge discusses today's Supreme Court argument in Kelo v. City of New London, which concerns expansive use of the power of eminent domain.

He quotes Russell Kirk, in a statement that applies as much to intellectual as to tangible property:

[F]reedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth.

As PFF keeps saying (well, screaming, actually), all those who have a stake in protecting IP should recognize their common interest, and should also recognize their kinship with those who are defending other modes of property. The underlying principles are the same, and if the government is free to take Ms. Kelo's house to give to someone else, then by what logic is it barred from taking a song, a movie, or a software patent for whatever purposes it chooses?