I don't think most people take issue with the
fact that patents are purchasable or otherwise
transferable.
I disagree -- because patents are government-granted monopolies that are supposed to help the inventor in being the first to market with an actual product, instead of, say -- keeping it as a trade secret or losing in front of bigger competitors that are simply going to copy it.
Considering that time and time again there have been inventions, like the telephone, that have been done by independent parties -- the notion of selling it is simply offensive and relies on the electorate being stupid or ignorant or both.
What next? Copyrights being used to disallow photos of buildings?
What next? Copyrights being used to disallow photos of buildings?
Misplaced slippery slope argument.
The transferable nature of patents in general (or copyrights, since you brought it up) is a totally different subject than patent/copyright violation through abstraction (how far removed is far enough?).
The argument covering architectural photography may be better suited for use within the context of the prevailing software patent discussion, where abstraction is quite the core issue.
Considering that time and time again there have been inventions, like the telephone, that have been done by independent parties -- the notion of selling it is simply offensive and relies on the electorate being stupid or ignorant or both.
What next? Copyrights being used to disallow photos of buildings?