The problem with your argument is that your always talking about devices that are already under patent. But patent laws are primarily about deciding whether a patent should be granted in the first place. And if, after consideration and debate, it's decided that many of the devices patented should not have received patents...well then they're no "devices under patent" either.
I think most people here believe that patents do have a place. They allow an inventor time to bring a product to market, and they allow inventors to gain investment in order to improve their product.
Bringing a product to market and improving devices in the market are both forms of progress that I'm sure fit within the constitutional definition.
Sitting on a patent and doing nothing except suing others for inventing the same thing is not a form of progress. The argument is that sitting on a patent and not using it productively is not progressive and therefore is invalidating the patent granted to it.
In sporting terms, we call that "use it or lose it".
What's wasting money is forcing the industry to spend money contesting patents that should not have been granted in the first place. And so, rather than progressing, the current situation is regressing. It's doing nothing to help with bonus points of throwing money away.
It could indeed be argued that copyright is a socialist concept, because the aim of copyright is to benefit the public. Combine that with a genuine free market and you can get a really good system.
Ironically, given the 'socialism is a bad word' implication in AC's comments, the model preferred by large swathes of the media marketing industry, is closer to communism, ie. "WE TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN BUY, COMRADE".
It could be argued that they're fostering the thought that Skype is a social network by doing this; social networking is where the money is.
It probably wouldn't be a huge development to change to a social network site (whatever that really means). Their two problems would then be, 1) does anyone really want another social networking site, and 2) their USP would actually require people to be social.
Whilst I'm no supporter of small government for small government's sake, I agree with the suggestion that most legislative detail should be dropped in favor of overarching principles. The constitution does that at a high level, so why can't it be done at a per legislation level? To suggest that such a move would increase risk is demonstrative of the cynicism in the legal process. Loopholes are there because of the detail, not in spite of it.