… the problem — of course — is that THAT tidbit just does not support a certain specific desired narrative (that patents are ‘bad’).

So instead of a full and thoughtful piece, we get “chum” like this story, and it is up to readers to note any particular context (for example, we HAVE a patent system to promote innovation, which should lead to more patents, and thus we should expect (and want) more than merely linear growth of patents. Anyone realizing that BOTH sides benefit in your Quid Pro Quo deal should immediately recognize that more patents (per that deal) is ALWAYS a good thing.

And yes, you will have your rabble who will try to twist this and move the goalposts to a “just hand out patents then, without regard to the Quid Pro Quo,” but that is just mindless noise and attempted obfuscation of the underlying principle as to why we have a patent system in the first place.