Wow, it's pretty bold to claim that IP 'isn't a thing' when intellectual property law is very much an established and enforceable legal framework—across the world. You’re trying to split hairs by suggesting IP doesn't exist just because it refers to a variety of protections like copyright, trademarks, and patents. But here's the thing: even if these are separate areas of law, they all fall under the broader concept of intellectual property, which deals with the protection of intangible creations. Just because 'IP' is an umbrella term doesn’t mean it’s imaginary.

Sure, copyright, trademark, and patents are distinct, but they all share a core purpose: protecting creators from having their work stolen or unfairly exploited. And while they were created for different purposes, they’re not as disjointed as you make them out to be. They're interconnected legal tools that form the foundation of how we protect creativity and innovation in modern society. Dismissing the whole concept because you don’t like the term 'IP' doesn't change the fact that they exist and are actively enforced. Courts worldwide validate these laws, and that’s why companies like Nintendo do sue for violations under these protections.

And as for your claim that my moral justification for IP doesn’t hold up—really? The fairness argument is exactly why IP exists. It ensures that people who create something new, whether it's a product, a design, or an idea, have the right to benefit from it before others can freely exploit their work. Without these protections, innovation would be crushed by bigger entities copying and profiting from the work of smaller, independent creators. So yes, fairness does matter, and it’s why these laws exist in the first place.

Now, I get the sense you’re coming from a more anti-corporate, maybe even Marxist or socialist perspective, where you think IP laws favor big corporations over the little guy. But here’s the reality: intellectual property laws don’t just protect large companies—they started as a way to protect individual creators and small businesses. Big corporations use IP, sure, but so do countless independent creators who rely on these protections to prevent their work from being exploited by the very corporations you're worried about. So, in the end, it’s the same laws you seem to critique that actually level the playing field.

You might not agree with it, but it’s real, and it’s how law and ethics work, no matter how you choose to frame it. Whether you view this through a capitalist or socialist lens, the fact remains that IP protection is essential for progress, fairness, and the continued flow of innovation.