What about them? You're free to discover new things, and not patent them, instead publishing them. If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property.
> If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property.
Many people attack companies that use tax loopholes even though the government does "allow" these loopholes. So if one is opposed to something, but it is formally allowed, one should attack both sides: The people doing it and the government.
Your correlation doesn't hold up because tax loopholes are not formally allowed. You call that out in your previous sentence by scare-quoting "allow". The inventor uses a formal system (patents). The company uses an informal system (tax loopholes). In the case of a formal system, you do not attack the inventor because he is just using the proper channel. In the case of an informal system, you do attack the company because the company is unethically taking advantage of a channel that shouldn't be there in the first place.
They're "free as in freedom"[0] to publish their inventions without applying for a patent, or to license their patents in any way they see fit, including free-as-in-everything.
[0]: The original "Free as in speech" seems to be a much better way to express your sentiment.