One of the serious problems with viewing things like copyright as intellectual property rather than a specially granted, limited monopoly is that it prejudices all discussions.
If a phone manufacturer locks down all phones to keep people from installing whatever software they want or institutes noncompete requirements in their app stores or whatever other garbage, a lot of people are going to implicitly be on the phone's side and require a VERY STRONG rationale to 'arbitrarily deprive the company of its property rights'.
Such rationales exist, but the huge presumption based on the already problematic Awe and Reverence for the Word Property really screws up our legal and policy framework.
On the other hand if we made it clear to everyone that we're granting a monopoly to achieve specific social purposes and with specific requirements, then any use of the monopoly would be tried against those enumerated social goods.