It doesn't really say anything important (IMHO) because we may also have a hell of a lot to gain.
You can make an equally strong argument that not only will we not lose it, but we'll be far, far better off with major restrictions on what he's peddling.
Sure, there are arguments to be had, and I would tend to agree with you that (at least in some sectors) we stand to gain more than lose.
But the commenter to whom I replied called the patent chief "intellectually dishonest", and I think that's a strong statement and not adequately supported.
Well, it's either intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy IMHO, because without some sort of backing argument you've just got someone trying to pass off a simple correlation as some sort of evidence of his argument - innovation is good, innovation happens and patents also happen, therefore patents are good.
He's either avoiding any/all arguments in that area or ignorant of them.
You can make an equally strong argument that not only will we not lose it, but we'll be far, far better off with major restrictions on what he's peddling.