What's sad is that the given examples just related to patents of concrete things. Now we're in an even worse bind, where we grant patents for both business processes and what are essentially combinations of algorithms (software); at this point I wouldn't be surprised if people were granted the ability to patent cooking recipes.
This has immense implications on how team members are valued and how to estimate and claim rewards not leading to deadlock. Something to understand very early on to know what to expect in our careers and broadly life too.
I don't like that the author lumps in IP monopolies with property rights. They are fundamentally different concepts.
Some of the examples cited deal with actual property, such as power transmission lines or shared oil fields. But patents and copyright deal with IP, which has a whole different set of expectations and ramifications.
Still, the author's conclusion seems sound to me:
the next time we start handing out new ownership rights—whether via patents or copyright or privatization schemes—we’d better try to weigh all the good things that won’t happen as a result.
Larry Lessig had an interesting TED talk on the way the law is stifling creativity. I tried to submit it but Hacker News was buggy. Anyway, you might find this interesting:
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsseldona.htm