Society should give (or "lend", in the case of a patent) a public good to a private entity if and only if the societal benefit outweighs the societal loss of giving out the good. Maybe your argument was shorthand for something along those lines, but I think it's important to distinguish.
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.
> 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.