It's hard to take libertarians seriously. Why do they want to change the Constitution to not protect the rights of inventors. Why do they persist in the myth that a patent is a monopoly, when it is clear under Locke's formulation of property that patents are property rights. Why do they ignore that Locke's ideas are inherent to the US Declaration of Independence, why do they ignore that patents were recognized as property rights under common law? Why do they ignore that the US, the most technologically successful country in the world, has had the strongest patent rights? Why do they ignore that the wealthiest, most inventive countries with the greatest technology dissemination have the strongest patent rights and vice versa?

there are so many false premises in the article it is going to take a fair amount of time to address them all. I will start with two.
1. Patents are not monopolies. They do not keep competitors from competing in a particular industry.
2. Companies using "aggressive" tactics with patent portfolios. I love it when anarcho libertarians use fight language about property rights. What is the purpose of a property right in the first place if you are not going to use it as such? Why have it? why invest in R &D, if you do not intend to protect your work and research? I own my house. I "aggressively" use that property right to keep out squatters. Gaining property rights is an offensive strategy.. Keeping others from using my property is defensive.