The problems he’s discussing arise from the fact that litigation is expensive, and those with lots of legal resources can use their superior position to assert their will against those who can’t afford (or may not be willing) to defend themselves. That’s a valid issue, but a broader one that exists outside the context of patents. It’s not a valid argument against the patent system itself. A powerful chemical company that poisons a town’s water table can do precisely the same thing. Does that mean we should outlaw chemical companies? No, of course not. His argument is only valid in the context of arguing for wider reforms to the legal process in general that make this sort of abuse less feasible. And that’s a different discussion entirely.
This is precisely the point the other article today by Nilay Patel—which was so lambasted here—was trying to make: the arguments being made about patents don’t necessarily point to tearing down the system, but simply fixing the things that are wrong.
"Just because my theory doesn't work in reality doesn't mean we should give up on the whole theory! Society should suffer what they must until this human experiment is refined"
Let's try to make this more objective. What's the goal of patents, how is success measured, and why are patents the only way to achieve this outcome. Furthermore, how did we establish that intellectual protectionism is more advantageous than open ideas? You seem to be at odds with the open source community.
" A powerful chemical company that poisons a town’s water table can do precisely the same thing."
Isn't it illegal to poison towns' water tables? That seems like a pretty severe flaw in your analogy, since presumably you don't think suing people for patent infringement and then offering to settle is or ought to be illegal.
There's also the fact that chemical companies provide clear social value: people buy what they make. With software patents, though, I'm unaware of any case where someone has reconstructed an invention from the description in the patent.
This is precisely the point the other article today by Nilay Patel—which was so lambasted here—was trying to make: the arguments being made about patents don’t necessarily point to tearing down the system, but simply fixing the things that are wrong.