Remember why there are govt protections for these things in the first place.<p>Imagine a spectrum - on one side, there are no protections, and people can copy ideas, implementations, etc.  For some industries this is no big deal, but for others it would seriously harm the production of new ideas&#x2F;products, because it remove any financial incentive.  Take writers for example: While I think the US copyright terms are stupidly long, I wouldn&#x27;t want to live in a world where the only books written and published were done so as labors of love.<p>On the other end of the spectrum is a collection of hard, strong rules governing the use of any other ideas.  On this end too few new ideas&#x2F;products are made, because it is in the short-term financial interests of those that have the lock on any market to prevent competition or disruption.  We have several industries quite close to this end of the spectrum.<p>The happy place for society is in-between these areas.  Lower barriers of entry for potential competitors, so that they can compete.   Does this mean that some of these competitors would benefit from the hard work of those that came before?  Absolutely!  But the alternative is making the barriers to entry too high, so that no competitor can gain traction because they can&#x27;t be better in all ways and produce an industry interested in compatibility overnight.  (Witness Linux and device drivers for a good example)<p>The reason govt offer protections for various areas is NOT to benefit a small number of companies or individuals (in theory) - it&#x27;s to benefit the whole of society, in the long-term  (which should include those companies and individuals, along with future companies and individuals).<p>It&#x27;s not about protecting that which is _that good_,  but about pushing us towards _even better_.