Aff evidence is funded by companies with patent interests---you should be inherently skeptical.

Similar factors apply to the issue of patents. Much university research in economics is funded by companies with interests in patents. These companies may not do anything as crass as ordering professors to take a particular position, but influence can work more subtly, as stated by Edward Said:

Nothing in my view is more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position, which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take. You do not want to appear too political; you are afraid of seeming controversial; you want to keep a reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate; your hope is to be asked back, to consult, to be on a board or prestigious committee, and so to remain within the responsible mainstream; someday you hope to get an honorary degree, a big prize, perhaps even an ambassadorship.50

Said’s point referred to foreign policy, but the point applies to any field in which powerful entities have the authority to boost or retard academics’ careers.

In conclusion, to judge policy in the field of patents, we must reject the confusing term “intellectual property,” resist the influence of businesses that have adapted to profit from the patent system as it is today, and stop making innovation our primary goal. We will then see that there is nothing to justify the harm done by artificial patent monopolies. The U.S. Constitution authorizes a patent system but does not require one. We can and should abolish it.