That is a common misconception. Actually patents were an adaptation of an existing system where royalty would give monopolies away to companies they liked.
No-one did any scientific tests at the time to ensure that they were a good idea in the first place. Now those who do retroactive studies are ignored.
>Actually patents were an adaptation of an existing system where royalty would give monopolies away to companies they liked.
Do you have a historic reference for that? According to Wikipedia, the earliest known patent law was in Greece, 500 BC, and modern patents are said to have originated with a statute in Venice in 1474, but no mention is made of this being an adaptation of royalty favoring companies with monopolies (which obviously was a practice that extended long after 1474).
I can back this up. I took a course last year from a guy who's one an expert on the history of IP law (http://www.adrianjohns.com/). The patent system in its modern form grew out of the statute of monopolies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies), which was intended to be used only in cases of new innovation, but royalty abused it by granting monopolies on common goods to favored merchants (who paid exorbitant fees for the privilege).
No-one did any scientific tests at the time to ensure that they were a good idea in the first place. Now those who do retroactive studies are ignored.