Your response is exactly what I'm talking about. You believe, but you don't know. You can't make an argument, you point to someone else, and advocate faith.
Imagine if a religious person had used that kind of "argument" to you, and referenced a priest regarding the law?
It is ok to not know. And it is ok to take things on faith. The problem is, when people think that their faith means they are right and people who make arguments they can't counter are "Wrong" because it goes against their faith.
Claiming that nobody who disagrees with you knows what they are talking about is also a symptom of religious thinking. You sound exactly like your description. Have you made any arguments yourself that don't beg the question by saying that patents are good because they were intended to be?
You said you've never met someone who knows what patents are and still opposes them, implying that nobody who knows is opposed to patents. I provided a proof by counterexample of someone it would be difficult for you to argue doesn't know what he is talking about.
And you haven't. Instead you claim that I don't know what patents are. I do know the difference between a design patent and a utility patent (and a trademark, and copyright). I've seen good and bad examples of each. Yet I still oppose software patents, support reduced terms for all of the above except trademarks, and want to see a much higher burden of proof for a patent to be granted, and higher still for a lawsuit to proceed. I also argue that independent invention should be a defense against patent infringement that doesn't require an army of lawyers to raise. Yet somehow you will try to claim I don't know what I am talking about.
The real test to distinguish rational from religious thought is the willingness to change one's mind. I'll tell you what would change mine: a plethora of incontrovetible, scientifically sound studies that prove that the harm done to and risk imposed upon small innovators and market competition is worth the benefit to society; or a solid implementation of the changes I'd like to see, that subsequently results in a collapse of innovation (collapse of any business alone does not count as a collapse of innovation). What would change your mind?
Imagine if a religious person had used that kind of "argument" to you, and referenced a priest regarding the law?
It is ok to not know. And it is ok to take things on faith. The problem is, when people think that their faith means they are right and people who make arguments they can't counter are "Wrong" because it goes against their faith.