I think firearms related patents are an instructive example. It has long been standard practice to patent new firearm designs. For the most part it works well,

I think firearms related patents are an instructive example. It has long been standard practice to patent new firearm designs. For the most part it works well, the patents prevent companies from immediately churning out cheap clones of successful designs. However, every once-in-a-while a patent becomes problematic, like the infamous Rollin White revolver patent. White patented a revolver design using then new metallic cartridges. The design itself was not commercially successful, but the patent was construed to cover any revolver design where the chambers were bored completely through the cylinder. It turns out this is the only reasonable way to make a revolver using metallic cartridges so it lead to many years of legal battles and bizarre designs attempting to avoid the patent. I'm not sure how to reliably identify Rollin White type patents, but there certainly seems to be a distinction to be made between beneficial and detrimental patents.