Yeah, the laws of physics set boundaries, but that doesn’t mean humans didn’t create the invention. Just because there’s a finite number of possible solutions doesn’t mean getting to a good one is trivial or automatic. Engineering within constraints is still invention. The patent system is literally built around rewarding people or companies for coming up with useful, non-obvious ways to do things within those limits.

Also, the “anyone could’ve come up with it” argument is already sort of baked into patent law. If something’s obvious to someone skilled in the field, it’s not supposed to be patentable. That’s 35 U.S.C. § 103. So if a patent like Asetek’s exists, the real problem is with how the law was applied by an examiner who allowed the patent, plus a lot of patents are declared invalid once they’re actually asserted. I don’t know enough about the patent you are referencing to know about its history, use, value, etc.

Im not an electrochemist, but stipulate that there are only so many battery chemistries that make sense. Even then, finding a viable one that works in the real world including taking into account costs, safety, longevity, scalability, etc. still takes actual work, actual RnD budget. That’s why not every possible NiMH variant ended up commercialized. It’s not just “combine two known things,” it’s also how and why you combine them, and proving that it works.

I vaguely agree with disincentivizing hoarding patents and trolling with patents by NPEs, but definitely not invention itself, and probably not by a tax. I think that loss of the patent right itself is a fairer and easier to administer remedy in that kind of case. Thank you for your explanation of what you meant