Do you want the results of the research be open and available to all, or should it become IP of nvidia or apple?

Why wouldn't it be open to all? The person I replied to just said how great it is for open information to trickle down to everyone.

Why would nvidia/apple/whoever open up research they paid for to help anybody but them?

I think your starting premise is obviously false and where are you getting that billionaires are privatizing the profits from the particle collider (sounds like a talking point). No one can guarantee that there are benefits - we can surmise that there are but there are still massive risks associated with large form science experiments.

Government has always been the backbone of basic science research - no one else can reasonably bear the risk and the advances are public domain.

Fundamental physics research has an extremely profitable returns ratio, but it takes decades to amortize. This does not work with capitalist corporations who only care about immediate profits. Even for governments this is a difficult sell, but at least they don't have to soothe shareholders every quarter. Generational projects take a different kind of economic thinking.

Is that just because there's shareholder anxiety with the unknown on if their investment will "be vested" by the time they need to pull it out for retirement?

If that's the case it seems like it might be shrewd for younger investors to buy into physics research on a 15-20 year timeline?

Unfortunately, younger people usually have neither the money nor the foresight for this.

> Why not Apple and Nvidia fund the next particle collider, and give something back to society instead of letting tax payers fund it so billionaires can privatize the profits?

Where do you think that tax money comes from?

Apple and Nvidia are creating the economies that produce tax revenue at every step of the way.

Yeah, except corporations don’t pay tax like they did in the 50s and 60s…

I believe the point was these companies benefited greatly and specifically from basic research funded by the government: they should therefore "give back" in kind (vs simply contributing to the tax base and relying on a government to figure out what to fund). The reality is these companies care only about shareholder value, and the current US administration has been terminating grants and cutting funding in basic research. I think it's fair to question, in this environment, what these companies' ethical responsibilities really should be.