I made no false assertion.
You made a claim that isn't backed up by evidence.
If IBM had not the exclusive right to resell that technology since the 1960s, there never would have been a computer revolution.
How could you possibly know this? Did you travel to a parallel universe? Did you just pull that out of your ass?
The issue here is whether or not society is entitled to reward research.
Is society entitled to do whatever it pleases?
Is society entitled to declare slavery legal? If so, so much for society. If not, why not?
Where do you ultimately get these entitlements from? The same place you got your last claim from?
Society exists. Humans don't live in isolation. Once it gets to the point where it is self directing via democracy, it can legitimately act on behalf of the plurality of its members.
You ask
Is society entitled to declare slavery legal? It already has for 1000s of years. You may as well ask if a bear is entitled to shit in the woods. The bigger question is "Should society declare slavery legal?" and the answer is not. We have evolved in terms of ethics and slavery is abhorrent to the modern mind.
Slavery is a useful wedge issue. As is abortion. For all we know, in 100 years people may look back on our society with disgust at the legality of abortion. However, promoting research is not such an issue. There is almost no constituency in society that thinks research and innovation should be stopped. A democratic society that wants to foster these things can legitimately act in a way that does so. That is why we have intellectual property. Unless you have some social model that is more powerful than a democratic society, your best bet is to argue that research and innovation are a waste of time and try to get the law changed. Good luck with that.