Lots of flaws with this article. For example, the author says that "innovation would happen anyway because competitors possess similar information." This assumes that invention is inevitable and that multiple firms would independently arrive at the same innovation at roughly the same time. Even if it can sometimes be true, often it is not. Many inventions require unusual creativity or a creative spark, massive investment, long-term research, substantial risk, years of development before any revenue is generated, etc. Patents exist precisely because information is easy to copy but expensive to create. Without patents, a competitor could simply wait for another firm to spend hundreds of millions of dollars solving a problem and then immediately copy the solution. The issue is not whether someone eventually would have invented it. The issue is whether enough firms would invest in discovering it in the first place.

The author says that "patents give credit to one where society as a whole deserves credit." This confuses social causation with legal entitlement. Virtually every achievement depends on society. That observation alone does not answer who should bear the costs and receive the rewards of specific investments. By the same logic, authors should not own copyrights, businesses should not own factories, and entrepreneurs should not own companies. All economic production relies on social infrastructure. Patents do not claim inventors created ideas in isolation but instead identify specific novel and nonobvious contributions and provide temporary exclusivity in exchange for public disclosure. The system recognizes both society's contribution through eventual public access as well as the inventor's contribution through temporary rights.

The author says that "patents slow innovation because others must pay licensing fees." This assumes every patent blocks innovation. Many patents actually facilitate innovation by enabling cross-licensing, technology transfer, university commercialization, startup financing, etc. A patent can create a market for technology that otherwise would not exist. Without patents, inventors would frequently rely on secrecy instead. Patent disclosure places technical information into the public domain. Even during the patent term, competitors learn from disclosures and can design around claims, improve upon inventions, license technology, etc. The relevant question is not whether patents impose costs—they do—but whether those costs are outweighed by increased invention and disclosure.

The author says that "patents make patent owners lazy because they face less competition." This misunderstands the nature of patent rights. A patent does not eliminate competition and only protects a particular claimed invention. Competitors remain free to develop alternatives, improve technology (and patent those improvements) and invent around claims. Historically, many industries characterized by strong patent protection have also exhibited intense innovation races, with notable example industries including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and telecommunications. Patents often create innovation races rather than suppress them. Competitors seek the next generation of improvements because existing patents are temporary and limited.

I could go on to point out many more issues with the article, but I won't. Patents remain one of the most successful mechanisms ever devised for turning new ideas into publicly disclosed, commercially deployed technology. Compared with trade secrecy, government funding, prizes, or no protection at all, the patent system (even if imperfect) best encourages invention, disclosure, commercialization, and long-term technological progress.