@ Teresa Orlowski --- Nothing can stop vexatious use of copyright, design rights or patent law (or any other legal process) being absurd. But that does not make all of IP law absurd and I imagine you would have a different view. There is a bit of a difference between rounded corners and packing millions more transistors onto a processer chip when you are up against the physics and you need to be nice to the shareholders so that you can get a new fabrication plant built to make it. I am afraid that market forces do not cause the spontaneous generation of innovation without investment and a costly and complex technological infrastructure. More often real innovation like VisiCalc creates markets that did not even exist, and again VisiCalc, while not being the only reason, is one of the main reasons that you and I can afford to post here.
Yes Roman and Greek civilisations contributed to what is and was good and bad in the west but compared to the innovation explosion of the industrial revolutions contribution to technology and scientific thought and changes it brought about in society it was A level stuff at best. If you are referring to the US patent secrecy act of WWII it did not stop patents but kept secret important military technologies and the US government actually filed patents during the conflict. The UK patent office is quite clear about monitoring patent submissions that may contain or disclose sensitive technologies.
The article is about the copyright hub and has nothing to do with patents or design rights so if you understood the difference between each type of IP and maybe read the act or actual accounts of how it is supposed to work then you could put up a critique.