> The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim. The logic of that is

> The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim. The logic of that is not right. The presence of both patents and innovations does not prove that innovation depends on patents. It only proves the sort-of negative: if both patents and innovation exists, then patents do not imply the absence of innovation -- i.e. patents do not completely destroy innovation. Various other things help innovation happen. And I expect more detailed evidence shows them to be the important factors -- that is the gist of Boldrin and Levine's work, so that is probably a good source to pursue on the matter.