The cost of compliance should be considered in determining whether a rule of law is ultimately to the net benefit of the economy, but if the net benefit is positive, the fact that compliance might put small players out of business shouldn't be a determinative objection. As an economic matter of fact, businesses that can't comply with generally beneficial regulation should go out of business.
So the debate should be about whether patent rights are in fact legitimate and beneficial regulations, taking into the cost of compliance but also taking into account ways in which those costs may be minimized through the structure of the law.
I think there are ways to structure the patent law, with bright-line defenses, so as to make defense of a suit extremely quick and cheap even by pro se litigants. One example would be requiring some sort of evidence of intentional copying as is required for copyright infringement.
So the debate should be about whether patent rights are in fact legitimate and beneficial regulations, taking into the cost of compliance but also taking into account ways in which those costs may be minimized through the structure of the law.
I think there are ways to structure the patent law, with bright-line defenses, so as to make defense of a suit extremely quick and cheap even by pro se litigants. One example would be requiring some sort of evidence of intentional copying as is required for copyright infringement.