That's kind of it, though, isn't it? I mean, consumer protection from swindlers and thieves, sure.

But it's not consumers clamoring for that protection so much as it's other swindlers and thieves, no? (Ok, that's kind of unfair, but the question is begging.)

I mean, is branding/marketing really a thing worthy of protection? I'm probably mistaken, but there are some trades, like (ahem) trading, that traditionally were morally disfavored as not actually making anything. Admittedly, this kind of thinking predates the explicit concept of "service economy"--perhaps predates the concept of "economics" (predates Adam Smith and others). Maybe it's outmoded, but it's a fun thing to think about because I've seen a few posts by TimothyH (God love him, he's a good Catholic[?] and it shows, but how to reconcile this pro-business stance that seems to turn very very ancient values on their head).

So, in the end, it's all just a balance of interests, a question of how we organize and order society. Not everyone, however, is comfortable playing sandbox/god mode. (You can kind of judge who is/isn't from the responses you're getting.)

Of course, if you made something, you should reap benefits of it.

On the other hand, IP sometimes winds up sounding socially damaging along the lines of "it's not enough that I succeed--others must fail". And that's harder to justify, not only because that's a kind of D-baggery, but also because there's really and truly not anything new under the sun, so a kind of overcrediting of human endeavor. And beyond that, a bit of dead hands steering. Does it make sense for there to be decades long protections in an era when product life cycles last just a couple of years, if not shorter? See for example, iPhone releases.