How should a court respond if a party argues that, because her right to an intangible asset is a property right, the defendant is under a strict duty not to interfere with that intangible asset? Our view is that such a conclusion does not follow from the premise, and the argument is really one that the party’s right deserves protection as it is sufficiently analogous to a right to a tangible asset.

中文翻译：

---

属性、类比和多样性

如果一方辩称，由于她对无形资产的权利是一种财产权，被告有严格的义务不干涉该无形资产，法院应如何应对？我们的观点是，这样的结论不是从前提得出的，而论点实际上是当事人的权利应该受到保护，因为它与有形资产的权利足够相似。