My only comment on this blog post is: "Good luck making that argument to most IP lawyers." Rights enforcement and litigation can extremely lucrative (particularly in patent law), so I seriously doubt that most IP attorneys would support your viewpoint -- for self-interested reasons, it's true. I don't think too many lawyers would argue strenuously with the point that copying is good for innovation; but it's bad for profits, and those can sometimes be sizable. So most likely IP enforcement rights will generally remain strong for many years to come.
While I'm generally pro-IP, certain gene patenting provisions and practices do appear to call into question whether some gene patenting (and even some "green" patenting) adequately meets constitutional standards. After all, patent law ostensibly exists to serve the public interest.
Patent litigation has, indeed, become big business and (for major players, at least) potentially a lucrative investment. Therefore, it is probably unrealistic to expect patent holders and trolls to police themselves, since they have a disincentive to do so. It may be wise for the administration to exert at least a little pressure on major interested parties, so that the situation does not swing too far out of balance and we remain mindful that the underlying constitutional purpose of the patent system is to foster innovation.