One cannot expect any particular professionals' group suffering from IP expansion to become very vocal on IP in general for anybody doing this risks being blamed for making illicit generalizations both from within the group and out of it.
Let us illustrate this with software developers:
''There is a striking lack of discussion from the usual leaders with regards to the application of copyright in areas other than software. Raymond is mute, and Stallman mumbles. They both seem to view software as a special case: Raymond tacitly, and Stallman explicitly. [...] The question of software as a special case remains unresolved (and probably unresolvable) in my opinion. We are left to ponder for ourselves whether we should apply our free software attitudes to other works as well. ''[34]. The same of course more intensively applies to software patents where the issues at stake are even higher: ''No Politics - Do not include in your emails any political analysis. Otherwise, certain civil servants at the European Commission will pretend that you are politically biased and claim that your arguments are irrelevant.''[33] and even [29] is very careful about his thoughts on the economy of the patents: ''Finally, I do not in any way represent the whole movement of people against software patents. In this movement are people who approve of patents in general except for software, people who think that patents are useful in some specific cases outside of the software industry but not in general, people without opinion on patents in general but against software patents, and people who oppose patents in general. As far as I know, most people in the movement against software patents are in the third category without an opinion in general, and most of the remaining are in the first two categories. As far as I know, the reason is that they don't have a clear understanding of how patents in general work or do not work, so they tend to accept the legitimacy of existing laws a priori, until proven incorrect. Such was also my opinion (or lack thereof) about patents, until I undertook to untangle the economic issues behind patents. I am now most definitely in the last category, a posteriori, after a lot of hard thought, the conclusion of which I'm presenting in current document. I do not claim to represent anyone but myself, and I expect my arguments to be considered a posteriori, after pondering them, for what they are, good or bad, and not a priori, without pondering them, for the number or quality of people who back them.''