There is a point about promoting innovation, but sometimes intellectual property contradicts that purpose. A company may invent something and then keep it off the market because they stand to profit more that way even though keeping it off the market may ruin the environment, be inefficient, hold back the progress of medicine, or do any number of other bad things to society.
Intellectual property should be limited to suit its purpose. It is not a natural right, it is a constructed right and is a tool for fostering innovation. When the price is reasonable people who hold intellectual property in certain things should be required to sell or face having it taken away and placed in the public domain by the government exercising eminent domain. Since intellectual property was invented to serve the needs of society it should be granted only in so far as it suits that purpose.
Look at the example of South Africa for instance. 3/4 of the world's AIDS deaths are from South Africa. When they tried to import non-patent drugs from Brazil and India, transnational pharmaceutical companies sued them. The majority of their population can't afford patent drugs. This is a very unfortunate manifestation of the Inverse Care Law. I know there's a time limit, but more often than not, they'll just keep getting new patents by ever-greening. Non-patent drugs should be allowed, or there will be no justice for the poor.
This is a very broad undefined topic of discussion. What type of trips were to be discussed? Business trips, those of nature exploration. Even the picture has no suggestion to what this forum could be about? Is there a real person running this site or is it computer generated and randomized to insult peoples intelligence.