, Maddus Mattus wrote

How is this for evidence;

When did Samsung started to copy from Apple? Was it as soon as the iPhone and iPad hit the shelves? Or was it when Apple already had a major share in the smartphone and tablet market?

It took three generations of iPhones for Samsung to catch up. Plenty of time for Apple to pick the fruits from their ideas, no patents needed. iPhone is fast becomming the new Windows Mobile. Lack of competition stifles innovation. And what exactly is Samsungs crime? Providing a cheap alternative to an iPad?

So, based on this evidence, patents have been used, in this example, as protection for Apple to hold on to it's market share at the cost of the consumer.

That's not evidence.

That's just you stating your opinion that patents are broken because Apple sued Samsung. You then state a series of opinions disguised as facts (Samsung took three generations to catch up, that Apple had protection in that time not due to patents, that Windows Mobile has no innovation).

For you to "beat" my evidence of a paper written by someone who actually studied patents, you need to show me a paper by someone with equal or better knowledge of economics (which will be judged by an independent third party - I propose any university publication or peer reviewed economics journal) showing clearly that patents are a net drain on the economy, rather than a net gain.

I don't frankly care whether they have imagination (and you're the first person I've ever heard try to use "lack of imagination  as a means of ad-hom discrediting a study) but what I do care about is that they have actually bothered to study the area - which means any argument off the top of your head does not count. It needs to have been actually written down after a study and then submitted for review in an economics journal or university publication.

What does not count as evidence are any number of circumstantial cases you care to mention (which do not reflect patent law as a whole, and are subject to the "cherry picking" bias) nor any "common sense" arguments (because if it's common sense it should be easy to find studies that prove it for you) nor any "patents have negative effect X therefore patents are bad" arguments (because they fail to take into account any positives. We're looking for total net benefit to the economy if you're suggesting that patents should be abolished).

Come back with that, and then you might be able to claim that you're using evidence.

Until then, not so much.