This story gives us a pretty ludicrous quote.

Open Source activists that want to see Linux succeed argue that eventually, they want all intellectual property protection to end, including patents and trademarks. The bottom line is this: a non-IP future means that all companies in the Baruch Lev study go to from 85% to 0% in intangible asset value.

Companies in the land where you can reverse-patent a hyperlink somewhat successfullly are going to end up with 0% intangible asset values? That's obviously madness. There simply won't be a "non-IP future", and it's silly to place these real-world companies in that outcome and see what happens.

Not only that, it's not like you can't continue selling closed-source applications that run on "non-IP" OSes. As long as you're offering something that only you can implement well, you'll have a market. What we're killing are shareware authors, not large software development companies.