This line of thought made me think of utility of the monopoly on the ownership of the patent vs the utility of the monopoly on the exploitation of the patent.

This line of thought made me think of utility of the monopoly on the ownership of the patent vs the utility of the monopoly on the exploitation of the patent. This is a distinction that I don't think is often considered, perhaps because "ownership" of something, at least in the US, has do-whatever-it-is-that-I-want-with-it, including the option of not doing anything, cultural aspect. That is, should the quid pro quo of being granted the limited monopoly require the grantee to still provide for the public good by actually doing something with it, rather than just sitting on it or attempting to exploit those who are doing something with it? So, the public grants you a monopoly on the exploitation of the invention for a limited time in exchange for making the invention public. But purely attacking the public, using the patent as a bat to beat others with, is not part of this exchange because the patent itself is not the invention. Really, shit-or-get-off-the-pot of patent granting. In exchange for publicizing the invention, you get a limited monopoly on the exploitation of the invention, not on the exploitation of the patent.