Here are some basic rules of reason that you might want to consider.

Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is most likely correct.

Hume’s Corollary: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Property Rights: In every case it has been tested, property rights result in increased productivity out of the asset. The Pilgrims almost were starved to extinction by ignoring this rule.

Patents are property rights, they are consistent with the historical basis for property rights – namely Locke’s labor (mental and physical) theory of property rights.

Occam’s and Hume’s rules are not applicable to the normative case. And even if they are, they would imply that the burden of proof is on you, who support the extraordinary claim that the state–the most murderous, evil, inefficient agency ever known to man–can actually enhance overall social welfare by handing out state monopoly privileges. What is your evidence? That you think America has been a success since its founding, and since our founding we’ve had IP law. This is among the shoddiest reasoning I’ve ever seen. If you have a proof that the patent system is an overall or net benefit, let’s see it. All you need to do is provide evidence that shows conclusively that the patent system is worth it overall. Such a study would need to show (a) the costs of the patent system, in dollar terms, (b) the benefits of the patent system, in dollar terms, and (c) the net difference, presumably positive. I’ve assembled the large number of studies I’m aware of; none of them concludes this. See: Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation.

Those countries with the greatest amount of technological innovation and technology diffusion have patent laws. These countries are also the richest in the world.

They also have a mafia, a tax system, antitrust laws, and anti-drug laws. Are those things also conducive to economic growth? Is correlation causation in your mind?

But somehow the anti-patent crowd expect us to ignore Occam’s razor and fails to provide extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claim. This is not reason, it is not scholarship, it is cynicism or theology.

Your comments betray the scientism and lack of familiarity with ethical reasoning typical of engineers (see my various posts on the limitations of the scientistic engineering mentality here). You are doing what typical engineers do: trying to cram the philosophy of science by brute force into your scientistic categories, trying to reinvent the wheel with limited tools. We all have values and norms, and they are not all “theology”. You yourself seem to be in favor of the patent system–this is a normative position, not a merely factual one. Your reasoning in turn rests on more basic norms. By your own “reasoning” this is some religion of yours too. Your crude attempts to “reason” using Occam’s razor are really embarrassing. If you really want to inform yourself before spouting off on such topics read Mises’s Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science or Hoppe’s Economic Science and the Austrian Method.

Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is most likely correct.

Hume’s Corollary: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Property Rights: In every case it has been tested, property rights result in increased productivity out of the asset. The Pilgrims almost were starved to extinction by ignoring this rule.

Patents are property rights, they are consistent with the historical basis for property rights – namely Locke’s labor (mental and physical) theory of property rights.

Those countries with the greatest amount of technological innovation and technology diffusion have patent laws. These countries are also the richest in the world.

But somehow the anti-patent crowd expect us to ignore Occam’s razor and fails to provide extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claim. This is not reason, it is not scholarship, it is cynicism or theology.

Adam Smith considered the division of labor as one of the most important methods of increasing a nation’s wealth. Without a strong patent system, many talented engineers, scientists, and inventors waste their time on playing politics and honing their management skills instead of focusing on inventing. Only by playing politics and becoming managers can these people increase their income. Since we know that technological innovation is the key to real per capita increases in income (see Robert Solow who won the Nobel Prize in economics for showing this), we want a system where talented inventors focus on inventing. Despite your cynical portrait of the inventing process, a company that focusing on inventing, as opposed to production, is similar to what a University does. Dolby is a company that has focused on inventing instead of production. Dolby has been a major benefactor to the audio industry and the economy. Qualcomm is a company that focused on inventing instead of production. As a result, they have been able to create the technology of CDMA for cellular telephones. Without a strong patent system Dolby’s business model would not be possible.

As the U.S. changes from an industrial economy to an information economy, more people will need to be employed in the processes of inventing instead of production. How exactly are these people going to be compensated for their efforts without a patent system?

Dale B. Halling, Author of the “Decline and Fall of the American Entrepreneur: How Little Known Laws and Regulations are Killing Innovation.” http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-American-Entrepreneur-Regulations/dp/1439261369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262124667&sr=8-1