> I agree with the conclusion, but for a different reason. "Theft" is the wrong way to think about IP. The economic function of IP is not to protect producers from consumers, but to protect producers from free-riding by other producers.[1] Thus, for example, stealing pills does not offend a drug creator's IP monopoly. Teaching people to make their own pills, who couldn't afford pills anyway, does not really do so either. It doesn't implicate the real purpose of the patent monopoly, which is to keep some other company from profiting by free-riding on the R&D of the original drug creator.

I've always wondered about this line of reasoning. Drug is made that could save a life, but is put behind an access and paywall that would prevent person from living. So one steals this drug or makes it in violation of patent rights. Now, logically theft is illegal and stealing it is theft.

However we also have another area of law called "Justification" - it "because committing the crime advanced some social interest or vindicated a right of such importance that it outweighs the wrongfulness of the crime." (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(jurisprudence) ) . This topic came up with the recent ex-marine who "stole" a truck to drive the shooting victims to the hospital, at the Vegas Massacre. On the face, he stole a vehicle. However it was to save lives, which is justification.

So yes, it is theft or violation of patent. However this is in the face of living or dying. Whomever would state this defense would have to admit complete guilt to the court, and rely on this as the defense.

But if this won, it would say that everyone has the right to life-saving drugs, but those that can afford it have to pay.