"A video game is never an idea, it's never an abstraction - it's specificity and reality, and it forever belongs to its specific author because it could have only come from him (or her). That's the definition of intellectual property."
I don't, completely, disagree with that. But there's a next step to it. THAT video game is not JUST an idea. It's a specific set of 1's and 0's to operate in a certain way. In that narrow definition of a video game not being an idea, I completely agree.
On the other hand, excel is a program in the same way. But they don't own the idea of a 'spreadsheet'. Even though Google Forms and OpenOffice have nearly identical products, they aren't the same product.
But with Video Games it's gotten out of hand. They've taken their narrow presentation of an idea, and begun pushing out anyone who does anything similar to the idea. Example the candy crush saga... saga:
But because all products are expressions of an idea, you have to ask where that idea came from. Many people cite the creator, and say they are the beginning of the idea. This is simply not true.
In almost zero cases, is there an example of an idea that sprang forth completely in a vacuum from society, without any roots or influences from the society into which it's emerging. Because of this, at some point, it should return to the society again so that someone else can build on it.
I agree with limited control and monopoly handed to the person/people who brought the idea into the world. It encourages people to do such things. But in a digital distribution era, where you can recoup your investment and begin making profit on it quickly, there is no need to allow these things to be held by the creator forever. It's not only a slight to the community that fostered the idea for them, and accepted it into itself, but dangerous for a society where the ideas it helped create become locked away for future generations to build on, and our progress slows to a stop as there needs to be a direct lineage to who owns an idea to use it.
But it's dangerous for the initial builder as well. I think is a good example of how an idea he owned, created, and carried forward has been 'purchased' by someone else for use, and now finds himself in the position of being unable to use the names of his friends within his own new works because they're expressions of ideas owned by another company. One that hasn't done anything with those ideas in a decade or more.
In short, ownership of the expression of ideas to the point that it limits new expressions of the idea is a dangerous road, that's bad for everyone... even the people who hold the ideas.