Looks like you built a strawman of an argument. I’ve never seen a patent issued to a corporation maybe you can cite one. I’ve seen plenty of patent rights assigned to corporations by patent holders some of whom worked for that same corporation and in fact the employees where paid to do just that.
Certainly nothing unconstitutional in that.
Here is a patent, from patft.uspto.gov, notice that the assignee
(Ternarylogic LLC) is different from the Inventor
(Lablans; Peter).
This is the reservation of exclusive rights
which the Constitution empowers Congress to pass, but the 'person' having these rights (this is to say "being assigned the patent") is not the inventor. (This is illustrated in the example given.)
But, let us assume that your assertion is correct: if I were to implement error-correction from a multi-valued cyclic code (what the cited patent covers) then who would have the standing to sue? Obviously Ternarylogic LLC
, to whom the patent is assigned.
And there we see the problem: Ternarylogic LLC
is a completly separate and distinct legal entity than Peter Lablans
(whom the patent officially recognizes as the inventor) — yet these exclusive rights, as secured by the patent [and patent law], are held by Ternarylogic LLC
.
And there we have a proof by contradiction. (Ternarylogic LLC
≠ Peter Lablans
)