Any optimization will sacrifice one thing for another. Perhaps a better approach would be to revisit our assumptions. Why do we assume that efficiency should trump freedom? Why do we assume that everyone will agree with the efficiency-is-king way of thinking? Why do we not consider the effects of our philosophy? We have smartphones and laptops now, but by forcing everyone to specialise they only gain happiness in the 'ignorance is bliss' understanding of it.
The simple answer is "no." There is no evidence that any patent or copyright monopoly has led to greater production of knowledge and culture. These laws are optimized for control, not for the expansion of knowledge.
yet somehow people keep repeating this.. He is also right that copyright came out of the desire to censor people. Patents are a relic from the time when state monopoly power was granted to many more things than just inventions.
The truth is, that's all more-or-less off-topic. The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big question is, do they work? Another valid question is, even if society creates more new stuff under a patent system, is it worth it considering the other problems a patent system has?