William A. Drennan (Southern Illinois) has published Charitable Donations of Intellectual Property:  The Case for Retaining the Fair Market Value Tax Deduction, 2004 Utah L. Rev. 1045.  Here is part of the Conclusion:

[T]he case for a fair market value deduction for charitable contributions of IP must rest on social policy grounds. There are many benefits that result from in-kind charitable donations of IP. First, the current rules encourage collectors to donate copyrighted works to museums, libraries, archives, and other charities. Tax law changes in 1969 removed all incentives for artists and authors to contribute their works to charity, and as a result, charitable donations by artists and authors have disappeared. A change in the tax rules to eliminate the tax incentive for donations by collectors could effectively prevent these institutions from acquiring works of "modern" art. Second, the current tax incentives for in-kind gifts of IP encourage the donation of potentially beneficial patents when the inventor cannot, or does not wish to, exploit the invention. In addition to bringing useful products to the market that can improve the quality of life, these donations help "strengthen the educational capabilities and innovative skills of our universities, teaching hospitals and research institutions." Third, in-kind contributions avoid needless transaction costs. Fourth, before radically changing the income tax rules for charitable contributions of IP, Congress should consider the "delicate balance" created by the income tax rules for charitable giving. If the tax benefits from donating appreciated IP are eliminated (as under the Senate Proposal), tax revenues will increase, but the amount of IP donations will decrease. Before adopting a tax rule that will reduce charitable donations to museums, libraries, archives, universities, hospitals, research institutions, and other charities, Congress should (1) estimate the amount by which IP donations will decline; (2) evaluate the impact of that decline on those charities; and (3) consider whether government will commit to "making up the difference" so that the overall resources committed to art and research do not decline. Even if the additional tax revenue raised will approximate the amount of the decline in IP donations, and even if the government will use those tax revenues for art and research, decision makers should consider whether government involvement in the arts and research should significantly increase while the art and research activities of charities decline.