They both must be accepted by the public as something useful and therefore valuable/worth resource (time, energy, money) yes?
Why would that be the case? There's plenty of information I don't care about or find valuable.
Information has a creator. I like how your think. That mean's that information is derived from someone. So, the design plan for the Tesla Model 3 is intellectual property just as the Schrodinger wave-proportion formula is intellectual property. Both are derived from prior information on the characteristics of components, which are derived from prior information on the characteristics of their components. Information does not exist without further application of the derived information. Otherwise, the same information circulates, repeats, useless so not a resource, and non-scarce so not in demand.
I already said that information doesn't exist absent the media on which it's imprinted. You're not elucidating anything here. Your claim is that non-scarce, non-rivalrous resources should treated like they are scarce and rivalrous because they have creators? I can create flatulence. Can I own a fart? I can make people happy. Do I own happiness. Having a creator is necessary for the establishment of property but not sufficient.
No one claims to own raw information. It's just a result. They claim to own the application of information.
Then explain copyright and trademark protections.
No one own's the information of Polaroid picture, but the information is captured, and therefore wouldn't exist, without application of prior information - the camera itself.
I agree that no one owns the information, but many photographers do actually claim to own the information imprinted on the polaroid. That's why they seek copyright protection. The fact that the information was imprinted on the polaroid by a camera is largely inconsequential. I can own a camera. I can own a polaroid. I can't own the information imprinted on the polaroid.
In short, the form of information you're arguing can't be owned only exists in fundamental cosmic forces - which only crazy people claim to own. You're arguing a point that 1) No one is disagreeing with and 2) Has nothing to do with the concept of intellectual property. And good luck telling someone with a god complex that they can't do something.
So no one is claiming this yet you doubt my ability to sway those who claim this? Which is it? If people aren't claiming this then how do you explain seekers of copyright protection?
You're arguing a point that 1) No one is disagreeing with and 2) Has nothing to do with the concept of intellectual property. And good luck telling someone with a god complex that they can't do something.
This shows complete ignorance with regard to patent and copyright trolls. I don't disagree that they're crazy, though. I'm sure they wouldn't even hesitate to use force of government against people to get what they want. After all, that's what "intellectual property protection" is.
That's the whole point.