Injunctions are sufficient to solve market signaling.

Property rights are a legal platform for commercial activity in the production and exchange of products and services in growing economies and flourishing societies. 72 This well-established economic principle is applicable to all property rights, including intellectual property rights such as patents. 73 Property rights in all assets, including patents, foster commercial activities in innovation markets, as market participants engage in specialization and division of labor in maximizing value creation all along the production and distribution value chain. 74 This key economic insight was first formulated by Adam Smith in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations.75 Property rights can achieve this economic function only when property owners have reliable and effective control over their property. If anyone can violate a property right by trespassing, and the only consequence they suffer is that they must pay the property owner some form of monetary compensation set by a government official following a legal or regulatory process, then property owners can no longer determine how best to use their property in the marketplace. Contracts are replaced by "efficient infringement" in which putative licensees can exploit costly judicial or regulatory processes to depress licensing rates, which reduces the willingness of innovators to create new inventions and invest in new commercial mechanisms for deploying these inventions in the marketplace. 76 This is the legal and economic function of injunctions. Continuing wrongs-ongoing violations of property rights-harm owners (and ultimately society) in ways that are not compensable merely by an award of damages for the trespass. When a trespasser wantonly crosses a farmer's field, the harm to the landowner is not fungible with the one dollar in compensatory damages for the trodden grass. 77 The value to the farmer of the private property is not one dollar. If the trespasser wished to access and use the land, this person should have negotiated with the farmer and paid the market price of this access right based on what he was willing to pay and what the farmer was willing to accept, assuming they could agree on an amount that was mutually acceptable. The injunction secures this capacity of the farmer to require this negotiation by the would-be trespasser. This economic principle-injunctions facilitate market transactions by securing a property owner's right to decide how she will use her assets and sell her products and services in the marketplace-is well recognized by courts in tangible property cases. In Continental Airlines v. Intra Brokers,78 for example, Continental successfully enjoined Intra Brokers' unauthorized resale of Continental's discount airfare coupons, which Continental expressly prohibited in the coupons. 79 In appealing the injunction, Intra Brokers argued that, even if it was liable for its resale of the coupons, the value of the coupons was easily measured by the face value of each coupon; thus, Intra Brokers concluded that Continental failed to prove that it suffered an irreparable injury that could not be remedied by a legal remedy (damages). The Ninth Circuit decisively rejected Intra Brokers' argument, stating that "Continental was entitled to control whether its coupons were transferred." 80 The court held that Continental had proven irreparable injury because the harm to Continental was to its power, not its purse. [Regardless w]hether Continental is right or wrong about the effect of coupon brokering on its profits ... it is entitled to make its own decisions about whether to give out discount coupons, and whether to make them transferrable or nontransferable. Neither Intra nor the courts are entitled to substitute their business judgment for Continental's .... 81 In Pardee v. Camden Lumber Co., the West Virginia Supreme Court similarly held that a trespasser who cut down the trees of a landowner could not simply elect to pay the landowner damages representing the fair market value of the trees.82 As in Continental Airlines, the defendant in Pardee argued that it was possible to precisely measure the monetary value of the trees and to pay this amount in damages to the plaintiff landowner. The Pardee court soundly rejected this argument, observing that this economic fact was insufficient to remedy the legal injury suffered by the landowner. 83 The property owner's harm was to its power of dominion, not merely to its purse. The court recognized that the fundamental policy function for "all forms of property either real or personal" is that courts "guarantee to the owner of property the right, not only to possession thereof and dominion over it, but also its immunity from injury." 84 The court further recognized that real estate is truly unique because "no two pieces of land are alike in all respects," and thus courts cannot assume as a default rule that fair market value (damages) is fungible with the full value of the real estate to its owner. 8 5 In securing control rights over property, courts protect fully not only the commercial decisions that make possible private-ordering decisions in business models and market exchanges, but they also secure the liberty interest in how people may choose to live their lives,8 6 to secure their privacy rights,87 and to create their own business models and develop corporate goodwill with a reputation as innovative companies. 88 As the Wisconsin Supreme Court recognized in another famous trespass case: "[T] he actual harm is not in the damage done to the land . . . but in the loss of the individual's right to exclude others from his or her property." 89