Patents don't exist to protect people's work, per se, they exist to "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Protecting people's work is a means t

Patents don't exist to protect people's work, per se, they exist to "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Protecting people's work is a means to that end. In this case it seems obvious, to me, that this is not promoting innovation at all. Would this technique never have been developed were it not for the fact that it could be patented? Would other people copying the technique in any way dilute its benefit to Twitter?