> It’s factually incorrect. The US government can hold patents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 Fine,

> It’s factually incorrect. The US government can hold patents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 Fine, that small part about filing is incorrect. But most of my argument is correct. The US govt allows private companies to monopolize public funded research to keep jobs and tax revenue that research would make in the US, because the US govt can't legally restrict them by filling patents of it's own (except for certain secret patents I read in Wired magazine). > More widely, if someone argues that changing the law to do X is a good idea. You can’t argue that the law prevents Y because changing the law is the idea. I was answering OP's question. The US govt wanted a return for it's funding of ALL RESEARCH and this was a way to deal with it ~40 years ago. This is now having issues with drug patents today. If you actually read my argument more carefully you would see I agree with OP at least with drug patents. > With tax shifting strategies and countries negotiating deep discounts while Americans pay much higher prices; it is difficult to justify the current practice now. Please actually comment instead of just downvoting; this isn't reddit.