different conclusion than you've been promoting. In fact, did you read the paper you linked? It doesn't support what you've been posting either. Your own paper says that patents create the structural integrity needed for open innovation, but thinks that the current system used for patents has flaws that can end up hurting innovation.

Your assertion:

Patents have a negative effect on innovation in most cases.

Here's what the paper you linked says about it:

 in most cases, intellectual property rights (IPR), and patents specifically, are considered to play an important role in open innovation 

The fence analogy is a good one. When property lines are clear and obvious, fences make good neighbors, but when the property lines aren't clear, fences become the cause of contention between neighbors.

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promote-innovation/id=48768/