Contradicting the null hypothesis is easy: any time a potential investor has asked a small company with a bright idea 'but what's to stop someone else just copy

Contradicting the null hypothesis is easy: any time a potential investor has asked a small company with a bright idea 'but what's to stop someone else just copying your idea after i've paid you to develop it?' and the developer replies 'well, we have patent protection' to reassure him/her, patents have been useful and supportive of innovation. The problem is that the argument will immediately move on to the net benefit/detriment to the industry, at which point we need to establish the principles on which people object to software patents. You are clearly unable to or unwilling to wrap your head around concepts you disagree with, so stop wasting your time. Less condescension maybe?