Without an excellent argument, I don't think I can agree. Many members of the public believe patents are a bad thing for society because 99% of all reporting on them is about the negative aspects; you rarely hear about the good that has come from them. It's the same reason people in the US feel less safe than ever from violent crimes even though the rates have dropped significantly. the norm is boring and the exceptions are newsworthy.
In practice, the efficacy of patents probably varies by industry. For software patents, I have a hard time thinking of a single instance where they benefitted innovation. Does anyone really think that Amazon wouldn't have 1-Click, or Apple wouldn't have rubber-banding, without patent protection?
In other domains, I'm sure there are instances where patents did genuine good, benefitting both their creators and society. (It's worth noting that patents are specified in the Constitution as intended for the public good.)
However, I still contend that the net effect is, on average, a drag on innovation, even if it's closer to 60/40 than 99/1. The system incentivizes a "mutually assured destruction" of big companies and patent portfolios, and blocks out small players who can't afford a legal team. It moves market competition into the domain of a flawed justice system, where even a victory can destroy a creator through millions in legal fees and years of lost productivity. It creates a vacuum filled by companies like IV who sit on their laurels and milk patent licenses, often for inventions never realized, rather than actually make anything.
