John Fields wrote:
The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know
it. Here's the original:

"Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing
as granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual
property."

And here's its second even more heinous incarnation, from above:

"recognizing an inventor need not include granting them the right to
use the invention"

That's your statement not mine!

Why do you keep constructing outrageous straw men to argue against?

Wheras the opposite is true - if
ideas are not ownable property, then anyone can make use of them.

But ideas _are_ ownable property. Take, for example, trade secrets.

Only in some systems are ideas ownable property. Apparently you aren't
able to think in the context of systems where they are not, long
enough to form sensible conclusions about how things would work in
those systems.

Instead of just blathering on ad nauseam with platitudes and
generalities, why don't you tell us where you _do_ stand?

"Ideas as virtual propety" is an artificial enough concept that while
it has substantial merit, it cannot be applied without constantly
keeping in mind the fact that it's an artifical creation subject to
compromise, not a mandatory state of affairs. You cannot blindly apply
physical property concepts to virtual property, because the
"property-ness" of virtual property is limited by the compromise that
grants it status as proprety. (some would say that the ownability of
physical property is also a compromise - which is true - but it's a
much less precarious one than that of virtual property)