Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem as I see it is: patents exist to allow innovators to get paid for their inventions That is not why patents exist. Patents exist for the good of mankind to convince innovators to share their trade secrets with the public. Paying those innovators is not the goal, it is the means by which the goal is achieved, making the inventions public. You've confused the carrot for the end goal. Anyone wanting to thin…
If there were any worldwide system of incentivization and value that was non-monetary, I'd be inclined to agree with you. As the world exists, paying inventors == convincing innovators to share their trade secrets with the public. Unless you'd like to offer feasible alternatives?
I didn't say paying them wasn't a valid means of achieving the goal, I'm merely pointing out that making the inventions public is the goal, paying them is merely a means of achieving that goal. To lose sight of the goal leads to making bad decisions. Thinking the goal of patents is to pay inventors for example, could lead to a far more screwed up system that doesn't benefit the public. We want to progress human knowledge, not make inventors rich; the latter achieves the former currently, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so if better means are found to achieve it.