Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we were talking about patents in general . And those are quite old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History -> "Patents in the modern sense originated in 1474" And of course, the Watt's steam engines patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt#Patents
And I'm calling out that the article was about software pattents being possibly bad and the response was simply, "no, patents are good" without any real substance.
Also, they made a general statement, which we could have dismissed thus: "OK, the patent system is a net good. But _software_ patents are definitely bad [a few decades of overwhelming evidence]". This is generally what we see here an HN.
However, I think we can attack their statements more directly, as "Against Intellectual Monopoly" did. I also think we should do so, instead of just defending our corner of the industry. My current position is, the concept of patent is broken at its core. It simply doesn't work, never did, never will. Hey, I even heard that the first patent systems actually were disguised trade barriers, meant to protect the established, local industry. At that, they did work.