So, would you argue in favor of a constitutional amendment? Because as far as the US Constitution is concerned, the innovation is the only thing that matters.
Since an amendment is clearly not what's under debate here, what do you think would be the most appropriate resolution for this case, within the constraints of the current constitution?
A thesis of "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is that patents, of all kinds (software, hardware, pharmaceutical…), are at best inefficient, and at worst detrimental to innovation. The reason is that in all domains, research is incremental, at least to some extent.
Suppose this thesis is accurate.
If US constitution just cares about innovation without stating that patents are an effective way to achieve them, no need for an amendment. Just ditch the patents (and smooth the transition as much as you can).
The true, unresolved, question is whether patents enhance innovation at all in any domain. My personal opinion is that they probably don't. If they do, whether the relevant domains can be clearly and legally delimited. My personal opinion is that very few or no domain can.
The problem is, this is my personal, partially informed opinion. I bet about 99% of the western population don't have an opinion at all. So, I think a good start would be to gather data, and inform the population. While they may not care about patents, I bet they care about having better and cheaper goods, saving the planet… When enough citizen have an informed opinion, they could back up a proper political debate (which I feel we need).
Since an amendment is clearly not what's under debate here, what do you think would be the most appropriate resolution for this case, within the constraints of the current constitution?