You presume that I don't do any reasearch, I do a lot, from both sides. That's why I did read the article you posted, it brings up some interesting points, but the writers lack imagination. They can only come up with a system where the government rewards inventors. Then a patent system is indeed the best option.

There is a third option, wich they have not considered. For somebody to copy a succesfull idea, it first has to become succesfull. So the fruits are allready plucked from the effort. If the fruits are allready plucked, there is no need to protect it.

It's my conclusion after much delaboration that patents are; constitutioned monopolies on ideas that aim to benefit the holder of the patent at the expense of everyone else. That their effect is to crippling competition, preventing startups from emerging in existing markets and that prevent innovation. 

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.