public research, private profit?

Interesting question: If the taxpayer funds the research which leads to a discovery, isn't there some reason to argue that that breakthrough is already bought and paid for and that (at a minimum) some portion of the results should be free to the one who paid for it?

Guardian columnist George Monbiot poses the question as regards scientific papers: Should the taxpayer pay twice?

Most of the work involved in writing the papers, reviewing and editing them is carried out at public expense by people at universities. Yet this public asset has been captured, packaged and sold back to us for phenomenal fees. Those who pay most are publicly funded libraries. Taxpayers must shell out twice: first for the research, then to see the work they have sponsored. There might be legal justifications for this practice. There are no ethical justifications.

It's thorny, but it is interesting.