1. They're the source off all kinds of innovation and startups that wouldn't otherwise happen. This means CompSci doesn't happen unless private parties fund it due to patents they expect. Most funding is by taxpayers. So, that's not true. Private parties won't invest in things without patent protection? Not true: they do anyway to remain competitive. Startups won't happen without patent protection? They do anyway with them rarely using patents and some using trade secrets. So, alleged benefits of patents are a lie, esp in software space.
2. They're primarily a tool to maximize profits of companies, small or large, that contribute almost nothing in innovation or features. Every study I've seen shows this. Plus, most suits are coming from groups that produce nothing: acquire patents from someone for cheap, then sue anyone actually building anything. Opposite of what system claims to do. Large companies make up most of the rest of the suits by putting innovators out of business while leaving their own products stagnant. They even sometimes try to take the products off the market as we saw with Virnetx, Apple, and Microsoft.
So, net effect is that patents are hurting innovation. Plus, nobody producing innovative stuff getting acquired did so by reading hundreds of thousands of patents. Surveys show they rarely ever read a single patent. They look at what's out there, maybe read academic work, build something, and sell it. Of all that innovation, patents contributed jack and most don't even get patents since they're expensive to get. Easier for big players the system is designed to benefit. ;)
"How long does it take for you to get a hint? ~15 years of patent reforms, numerous SCOTUS cases, POTUS trying to get involved, etc."
Vast amount of profits produced by legal monopolies gave patent holders more money on lawyers and politicians have given them a good run. Plus, most of the rest aren't uniting to deal with the problem with counter-lobbying. I had a hint of that a while back. That doesn't mean we actual innovators should stop fighting monopolies mostly issued to non-innovating, big companies and small companies that sue instead of sell products.
"Same old tired line. If it drives prices up then generally it will lure investors to invest - and to invest in patents requires investing in innovation - investing in innovation means R&D."
That was so funny I had to respond to it. A patent is a legal monopoly. A monopoly by definition and style will lead to higher prices than competitive segment with many players innovating. If you're right, please tell me about all those cancer and heart drugs that I can get for generic prices. Oh wait, I can't, because they're patented and patent-holders charge whatever the market will bear to maximize profits. Same everywhere else where alternative innovations are hard to come by. Or existed but don't count in a "first-to-file" system that favors patent holders.