Morally, can someone actually or deservedly control an idea?

Is there Scholastic analysis of "intellectual property"?

It seems there was another recent thread on this same topic. 

Resources on intellectual property and copyright

Moral theologians treat copyright / authors' rights when discussing contracts.
Prümmer, O.P., Manuale Theologiæ Moralis, PDF pp. 529-30 (§§8-9) on © (ius actoris):

Omnes quidem docent, esse purum putidumque furtum, si quis clam alteri surripit manuscripta aut artifacta aut inventa nondum publici iuris facta, quia legitimus dominus est rationabiliter invitus propter grave damnum et gravem iniuriam ipsi illatam. Sed quando manuscriptum iam est typis impressum, aut si inventum (vulgo Patent) iam est divulgatum, disputant theologi, num nova impressio libri sine licentia auctoris facta vel imitatio inventi sit contra ius naturale et ad restitutionem obliget. Nonnulli negant, quia opus semel evulgatum iam fit bonum commune, quod ab omnibus licite occupari potest [Ita præsertim. Bucceroni, Theol. mor. I, n. 878; aliqualiter etiam Morres, De iust. I, n. 24; Vermeersch, De iust. n. 246 sqq.]; sed communior et verior sententia affirmat, cuм restrictionibus tamen a lege positiva indicatis.

All teach, indeed, that it is pure and putrid theft if one secretly steals other manuscripts, artifacts, or artifacts not yet published, because the legitimate owner is reasonably unwilling on account of the serious damage and serious injury inflicted on him. But when the manuscript is already printed, or if the invention (commonly known as a Patent) has already been divulged, theologians debate whether a new printed book without the author's permission or an imitation of the invention is contrary to natural law and there be an obligation for restitution. Some deny it, because once the work has been divulged, it has become the common good, which can be lawfully occupied by all [cf. esp. Bucceroni, Theol. mor. I, n. 878; somewhat Morres, De iust. I, n. 24; Vermeersch, De iust. n. 246 sqq.]; but the more general and truer opinion affirms it, with the restrictions indicated by the positive law.

---

In U.S. civil law, "Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349-50 (1991) (citations omitted)" gives the purpose of ©:

The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.

Related to U.S. law not considering copyright infringement theft is Stephan N. Kinsella's argument in Against Intellectual Property that IP is not property because property rights only apply to scarce resources:

But surely it is clear, given the origin, justification, and function of property rights, that they are applicable only to scarce resources. Were we in a Garden of Eden where land and other goods were infinitely abundant, there would be no scarcity and, therefore, no need for property rules; property concepts would be meaningless. The idea of conflict, and the idea of rights, would not even arise. For example, your taking my lawnmower would not really deprive me of it if I could conjure up another in the blink of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circuмstances would not be “theft.” Property rights are not applicable to things of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things.

This is similar to the argument Aaron Swartz gave in his short article "Downloading isn't Stealing."

---

St. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana bk. 1, ch. 1:

For a possession which is not diminished by being shared with others, if it is possessed and not shared, is not yet possessed as it ought to be possessed.

(cf. Willinsky p. 82).

Also, the internet and ease of sharing information was unknown when © law was first developed (cf. the Google TechTalk The Surprising History of Copyright…), so the virtue of epikeia (against legal pharisaism) must be applied here. II-II q. 120 a. 1 ad 1: "it is written in the Codex of Laws and Constitutions under Law v: 'Without doubt he transgresses the law who by adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the intention of the lawgiver.'" The intention of the law is "not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (quoted above), not restrict the sharing of knowledge.

Moral theologians treat copyright / authors' rights when discussing contracts.
Prümmer, O.P., Manuale Theologiæ Moralis, PDF pp. 529-30 (§§8-9) on © (ius actoris):

---

In U.S. civil law, "Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349-50 (1991) (citations omitted)" gives the purpose of ©:Related to U.S. law not considering copyright infringement theft is Stephan N. Kinsella's argument in Against Intellectual Property that IP is not property because property rights only apply to scarce resources:This is similar to the argument Aaron Swartz gave in his short article "Downloading isn't Stealing."

---

St. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana bk. 1, ch. 1:(cf. Willinsky p. 82).

Also, the internet and ease of sharing information was unknown when © law was first developed (cf. the Google TechTalk The Surprising History of Copyright…), so the virtue of epikeia (against legal pharisaism) must be applied here. II-II q. 120 a. 1 ad 1: "it is written in the Codex of Laws and Constitutions under Law v: 'Without doubt he transgresses the law who by adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the intention of the lawgiver.'" The intention of the law is "not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (quoted above), not restrict the sharing of knowledge.

Thanks for these.

The secular view is self-serving. I'd argue that patents promote profit, but retard progress.

This is the thought that prompts me to ponder the topic: "…once the work has been divulged, it has become the common good, which can be lawfully occupied by all."

No doubt there is some degree of truth to this, but there is, of course, a flip side to the assertion.  Human nature being what it is, a strong case could be made that a lot of inventions would perhaps never have materialized were it not for the profit, prestige, vanity (of all sorts) sought after by the individual and or collective/corporate inventors.  And then again, on the "flip-flip" side one could argue that a lot of these inventions have indeed not only retarded temporal progress, but spiritual progress and not only on an individual basis, but a collective one (read entire nations) as well.

Yes. I'm glad you elaborated.  There's not much risk that our ideas will become law, but I'd rather build a society that progresses temporally and spiritually because it is the right thing to do, rather than a society that "progresses" due to love of mammon.

Exactly. I would rather that society "progresses" slower but due to unselfish people rather than greedy ones.

So it may be in the Sixth Age of the Church…
when Jєωs and their covetousness are suppressed and mankind realizes that true treasures are eternal and not of this world.