I was just highlighting the double standard used depending on who is benefiting. I'm not here to "decide" which one is the correct approach. Just that either wa

I was just highlighting the double standard used depending on who is benefiting. I'm not here to "decide" which one is the correct approach. Just that either way the company with deep pockets will always be the one who gets the better end of the deal. Which is why companies shy away from sharing any of their profits off HeLa with the patient's descendants. But try to use any of their work without sharing the profits with them. A few seconds of a decades old song is assumed to deserve more protections. Usually companies are allowed to use justifications that nobody else is allowed to. > The ability to profit off of innovation is necessary to pay for facilities, equipment, and researchers. The ability to profit is not a binary thing. Which is why patents aren't granted in perpetuity. Given that there's no upper limit to how much profit a company would like to make, I'm not sure you can reasonably support the point. How much profit is enough to motivate?