Forbes can kiss my graminivorous quadriped
They are making their case on the a priori assumption that patents are good and necessary. If patents were net positive, they would show their proof. They do not show the proof because they have no such proof. They have no such proof because that proof does not and cannot exist because patents are not net positive.
If it looks like a troll, sues like a troll, and quacks like a troll, then it probably is a troll. Either that or a very ugly duck.