I believe someone else pointed out that the Strida patents expired. So the analogy is fine. Moreover, it is popular to pick an extreme example to make a point; but if you don't like picking a familiar drug or its age, then pick another one where the patent recently expired.

I can't tell from your response whether you got my point or already understood it; that there is a tradeoff between giving people the incentive to innovate and providing the good to society at a more accessible price (a price that excludes the extra rents that go to the inventor or owner of the patent).

The progress is that members of society can now acquire the formerly patent protected good the socially efficient price.

Note that what I described above applies to pharmaceutical drugs and my example. So unless you think that patent protection should be infinite, then you should also recognize that competition -- ignoring the complications of imperfect information since it should not affect the main argument -- reflects progress manifested in lower prices and less deadweight loss.

Now I don't pretend that legislative branches of governments naturally come up with the optimal duration of a patent -- either from the perspective of economic efficiency or sense of fairness. However, it is the relevant standard here.

I can only type so fast with one hand. If you search for Brompton (Merc) and patent (copyright) you should find some relevant threads.