Patents are really not the best argument for the case. Because the patent law (at least in its original idea) was not to enable the protection of innovation but to make innovators publish their findings. Before patent laws came along, the main way to protect your innovation was to keep it secret. Of course this meant that a lot of things had to be reinvented over and over because whoever invented something took the invention with him when he died. The idea was that if you publish it for everyone to see, you get protection for a time to use it exclusively. That also meant that people could take your innovation and invent something based on it. The whole "standing on the shoulders of giants" things.
The idea was good. Until it was perverted to protect non-innovations, ideas that have no innovative value but are only used to corner a market. From rounded edges to one-click-buy, things that should not be patentable in the first place.
So patents were less a means to protect the innovator and more one to keep innovations from being lost with the innovator.