So, in other words, I have no idea what your point is.
Contracts require consideration. If I own something and sign a contract with you that allows you exclusive control over it, then I have to be getting something in return. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that there's some restrictions on consideration that can render a contract void if it is incredibly lopsided. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that a contract exchanging an invention earning billions per year for a five figure salary and a position that can be terminated on a whim might not be a valid contract. I really don't know about that though.
The other nice thing about personal ownership of copyrights and patents is that it makes the whole retroactive copyright extension and post-mortem copyright assignment transparently illegal. If only the creator of a work gets the monopoly over its distribution, then the termination of the creator must entail the termination of the monopoly. I'm very much not a fan of eternal copyright, so that alone would make me a bit happier.
I think I've probably threadjacked this way too far, so I'll just shut up now. Maybe I'll start a blog somewhere where you can rip holes in my half-assed ideas without us bothering anybody else :)
Edit: In the US and England at least.
4. 'Ownership' is to a certain extent a legal fiction - it's simply a label we use to indicate when the government will use force, if necessary, to allow the 'owner' to do X and/or to prevent others from doing it.
5. In that sense, a patent or copyright conveys 'ownership' only in that the government will (upon a proper showing) enforce specified penalties against non-owners who do things they're not 'supposed' to do.
6. Congress long ago stated, in the relevant Acts of Congress, that patent- and copyright 'ownership' can be transferred to others, including corporations and other entities.
7. So basically, the brute fact is that 'ownership' of a patent or copyright can be transferred because: (i) Congress said so, and (ii) the guys with the black robes and gavels follow what Congress said, and (iii) the guys with the guns and badges go along, and (iv) ultimately, the guys with the BDUs and M-16s and tanks go along too.
8. The above doesn't automatically prove that Congress made the right call on this point -- but I don't think there's been much of a controversy about it in the past 200-plus years.
