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
)
You have not proved a thing except that only individuals can be granted a patent. Now you wish to shift the argument to unconstitutional usage of the rights granted to a patent holder. If I hold a patent it is my property and I should I have the right to use it as I see fit and that includes selling the rights to a corporation. It seems you argument is about the wisdom of having and even encouraging corporations and not patents.
I will split hairs and say there is a difference between a government chartered corporation and and a cooperation in the sense of two or more individuals joining together for a common cause.
Government grants of incorporation are for the benefit of the government or a long time ago for the king. The would not be part of a free enterprise system which is ironic since most all of the ills blamed on free markets are blamed on corporations.
So I agree to ending government grants of incorporation but so long as they exist restricting individuals property rights in dealing with them.