I very strongly disagree. If I spend years to develop software and someone copied the code and sells it then I think it will be almost universally perceived as unfair enrichment by others.
If I come up with a clever solution to do voice calls and then another person comes up with the same solution in their app then it's tough luck but there aren't many people who would feel it's unfair. After all we both based our work on existing knowledge and our ingenuity unlike in the previous case where people copying didn't do any work themselves.
There is strong moral argument for copyright, a sentiment most people at least in Western culture agree with: you shouldn't be able to take work of others without doing any yourself.
The problem is that patenting a kind of screw is not the same as patenting an algorithm or field of computer science. Software uses many more kinds algorithms than any physical product uses screws. It's impossible to avoid minefields for any reasonably large project.
Let's not forget that for quite a few years, asymmetric cryptography was patented and you couldn't implement any kind of cryptosystem that used it. God knows what the state of cryptography would be today if we didn't have our equivalent of a "dark age" thanks to fears over patent litigation.
Software is engineering, not art. It should be protected like technology, not art.