I agree. I liked his post and I mostly agreed with his views, except that one that patents enabled the industrial revolution. I don't think that's true at all. I think progress in technology (and in other fields as well) happens by building something and then allowing others to build upon it. Having a patent is not the main reason someone wants to build something or to bring it to market - not even close.
This is a good video on this (about how the steam engine, the light bulb, Ford automobiles, and other breakthrough inventions came to life):
The point of patents was exactly to allow others to build on innovations by rewarding disclosure with a time-limited monopoly. Before there were patents, the only protection against copies was to keep innovations secret, possibly forever while you try to think of a way to exploit them without disclosing them.
It is not entirely clear that patents would help much in that.
If it is not possible to keep something secret, patents would only help if people otherwise really would keep inventions secret. But there are ways to gain even without secrecy -- first-mover advantage, etc. -- and inventors would be attracted to those rather than nothing at all.
If it is possible to keep something secret, then those motivated by the gains from patents would choose secrecy in preference, since secrecy is an even stronger monopoly.
This is a good video on this (about how the steam engine, the light bulb, Ford automobiles, and other breakthrough inventions came to life):
http://vimeo.com/25380454