Comment by esoltas

Soltas (the author) here. What I meant by "rents are not always bad" is that "rent" is a positive (i.e., value-free) concept, not a normative (moral) one. "Rent" in economics merely implies that the profits are in excess of a competitive-equilibrium outcome/allocation. In this case, the competitive outcome is perverse -- nobody innovates because, without IP, you pay for the cost of R&D but "copycats" can steal the idea without paying. (It's a prisoners' dilemma.) So profits from a patent are rent, insofar as they come from the protection per se. As I acknowledge, I think those rents are economically useful -- as an economist, I don't have anything interesting to say as to whether they are morally acceptable, as you discuss in your post. For example, it's a fair argument to say that "ideas should be free," and that the purpose of IP is not to enrich/honor/etc the innovator but merely to give him the incentive to contribute the idea to the social good. Or you might argue the opposite of that. I don't really have an opinion. Hopefully this clarifies the way economists use the word "rent."