I think the question here is a bit weird... "what does one respond"?
Well, if you're asked a question, then why not just answer what you think is
correct?
I think it will not be so convincing if you just repeat what other people
told you.
Maybe you can find examples of absurd patents and cases when developers have
been unrightfully sued.
If you have just second-hand-information on the topic (like most people do,
including me), then you can be upright about it and say: "From what I've
heard i think patents are wrong because..."
Or "I don't know much about it, but I really dislike the idea of software
patents because... (I believe practical knowledge should be freely
available)".
You don't have to claim to know everything, and you don't have to try to
convince people who already made up their minds.
At the same time, you can just question on what grounds the arguments of your
opponent are based on. I mean let's look at the quote that you've given:
“Software patents are essential because they are the consequence of
substantial risk-taking and investment on the part of firms. Without software
patents or without adequately protecting them, the incentives of firms to
innovate and invest would be undermined, with the consequence that consumers
may be worse off as a result.”
How does she reach this conclusion? How many firms (I guess this means
companies) has she observed in detail so that she can
put this thesis on solid grounds?
I bet there aren't that many. So if she's just guessing and telling vague
ideas, then I think a simple "My guess is that you're wrong" can be already
enough.
