The idea behind patents is to given inventors an incentive to disclose their inventions to the public in exchange for getting a monopoly on them for a limited time. Even the word patent derives for its Latin antecedent meaning "open" (in contrast to its English-derived counterpart, "latent"). And, of course, a monopoly grant over any invention will by definition hinder others from using that same invention during the term of the monopoly.

In open, collaborative environments, you have openness by definition and you have no need to give inventors incentives to disclose because they are doing this axiomatically day-by-day as they routinely share their development work. In such an environment, it will appear absurd to the inventors that they should be hindered from doing their work by arbitrary restrictions granted to a monopolist over what they regard as routine tools of their trade. This seems arbitrary, capricious, and damaging. Such a system can even be perceived to be obscene in allowing others who happened to win the rush to the patent office door by a hair's breadth to bring damage claims for up to two decades against others who were not quite so fleet of foot. And all the more so if the "inventor" is not really anything of the sort but rather some troll who lays about conceiving "claims" that get patented for the sole purpose of extorting money from those who truly are in the real world inventing useful products. And hideously so to those who philosophically oppose the idea of such monopoly grants altogether, and see them as being even vicious and oppressive as they are condoned by the social policy of the day as upheld by politicians, lawyers, and lobbyists.

That is the case against patents as reflected in the spectrum of opinion pretty widely found here on HN, and it reflects the open, collaborative perspective many of the members here take with respect to the very idea of innovation.

In essence, the paper cited in this piece says that the whole world of innovation has moved, or is rapidly moving, to a state where openness is the governing principle behind most inventions. If that is indeed true, then the authors of that paper are right by definition - a patent system that is designed to spur public disclosure by, in effect, "paying" the inventor via a temporally-limited grant of a monopolistic advantage over the invention makes no sense where inventors are more than happy to disclose it all for free based on other things that may motivate them (the gaining of recognition, the belief that useful information ought to be free, or whatever).

The real question, though, is whether this assumption of the authors is a correct one. Things clearly have changed in major areas of innovation but to generalize this to the whole world of innovation may or may not be valid. And that is why the patent reform movement is in fact moving quite slowly in the broader society, whatever its fervor in the narrower circles frequented by the members here.

Not saying that reform is not needed - it plainly is. Just don't be surprised if others aren't eager to join in the movement, especially when they are subjected to the counter influences brought on by lobbyists, lawyers, etc. The movement may take sway with Congress but I wouldn't expect this to happen any time soon.