That seems like a poor analogy, if you mean the park already exists and the company is just trying to take possession of it. In this situation, there is no park at the outset, and the company would have no incentive to build one if it didn't have some way to benefit from it once built. Companies will only create this kind of IP if they can profit from it; they're not charities. If we as a society want this IP to exist, our only options are to protect the profit motive that leads to its private creation, or (like the park!) fund it publicly.

I'm not sure I agree. Let's take "cure for cancer" as a theoretical thing that can be accomplished with $nB in research spending.

What is the incentive for companies to spend their resources trying to find a solution for this if society can effectively nationalize the results as soon as they are obtained? If a company cannot recoup their investment (and their risk) then they're not going to spend the resources in the first place.

It's far better for public institutions to have well funded research programs for "IP" that serves the public good. If companies get there first, by all means "lend" them the patent (as long as the "loan" expires after a reasonable period of time.) This is largely the system that we have today, and while not perfect in many respects it does ensure that both public and private entities are chasing big goals.

> Spend can't really be the

> reason a company gets a

> public good, right? If I

> want to own a city park,

> and I spend a bunch of money

> trying to own it, that

> doesn't mean I do, in fact,

> own it or should own it.

Isn't the error here assuming that the IP invented by the private entity is automatically a public good?

To me a public park is not equal to IP invented with private funds.