Abrupt revolutions are appropriate only when in response to aggression, coercion and fraud. Otherwise, they should proceed at the pace of persuasion and voluntary change. The less proven and precise the grievances are, the more we should rely on the latter path.
Because IP isn't property, its protection is a form of coercion, via the enforcement agencies, often paid by people with no stake, via taxes. That is not to say that markets shouldn't punish IP copycats, if the people hold innovation in high esteem.
But like any institution built on coercion, there are cracks in the foundation. In fact, our IP regulatory system has inhibited the development of technology and market solutions for rewarding innovators and preserving authenticity.
To me, Anarcho-Capitalism is just Anarchism. The usefulness of attaching Capitalism to the term is to distinguish from other (false, imo) anarchisms, which have some form of establishing dominion over another or their property.
Anarcho-Capitalism isn't really a system, but an extension of principles - the NAP, contracts, and sovereignty of the individual within those boundaries and terms, with sovereignty extending to labor (finite life and energy) and thus to fruit of labor (property).