And the arguments in favour are often based on feelings and/or the vested interests of the current owners of "intelectual property". I think that basically it is immoral to prevent the progress of global useful knowledge of science and engineering.
If there are reasons to do so, they should be very strong and well proven, and be applied with utmost caution.
Today, it seems rather that IP law is blindly extended and strengthened besed upon fake arguments. The real argument is just protecting vested interests and locking out competition and innovation.
This excludes trademark law, which is not really IP but more to protect buyers against fakes and inferior copies. Therefore that can be necessary and useful, if not pushed too far.
If there are reasons to do so, they should be very strong and well proven, and be applied with utmost caution.
Today, it seems rather that IP law is blindly extended and strengthened besed upon fake arguments. The real argument is just protecting vested interests and locking out competition and innovation.
This excludes trademark law, which is not really IP but more to protect buyers against fakes and inferior copies. Therefore that can be necessary and useful, if not pushed too far.