The problem with that reply is that it's denying the antecedent. The original point was regarding a hypothetical country that jettisons its patent architecture

The problem with that reply is that it's denying the antecedent. The original point was regarding a hypothetical country that jettisons its patent architecture, or never evolved a restrictive one to begin with. Using the US as a counterexample is arguing a different question. As the original comment pointed out, the US has been successful, but it could be for many confounding reasons.