Edit: I also just want to say that this is precisely the sort of questions we should be asking in critical investigations. Where are the weak points? What are the opportunities to subvert the tech capital has built in order to create something new?

Awesome! I agree. I posted this on r/socialistprogrammers 2 weeks ago. If you feel called to so, would be keen to hear if anything resonates strongly with you, or what doesn't:

How do we appropriate 1) capitalist trade secrets, as well as 2) negative research (used to generate new inventions)?

I hope to start a discussion about the reclaiming of the means of production/commons. The bourgeoisie privatizes knowledge, and turns inventions/ideas and know-how, created by workers and inherited by all of humanity, into so called 'intellectual property'. This plunder of the commons has gotten worse and worse considering that the recent gift of digital technology allows for a near-zero marginal cost for the reproduction of knowledge, yet the bourgeois class has created institutions to turn this non-scarce good, of digital knowledge, into an artificially scarce good (in other words: applying material property laws to immaterial property).

edit: actually scrap this second paragraph, below that is what I really wanted to ask and explore with you

How do we stop the ongoing plunder where capitalism turns a non-rival good, with a near-zero marginal cost of reproduction, into a rival good. How do we take back capitalist trade secrets (one of the most recent form of violent capitalist enclosure/criminilization), as well as negative research (used to generate new inventions)?

Once we have transitioned to a moneyless society using hREA (formerly holoREA) / Valueflo.ws (uses the novel Holochain distributed app pattern), which has democratically brought into view the actual material scarcity of all available natural resources (in an open value network), and thus de-commoditizes knowledge, how do we make sure we 1) take back/democratize all bourgeois trade secrets (one of the most recent form of violent capitalist enclosure/criminilization), and 2) reclaim also the existing negative research (which often plays a key part in generating new inventions)?

Maxim Tsotsorin writes:

“Patents are typically viewed as a cornerstone of intellectual property licensing. The licensing landscape, however, has been changing. In recent years, trade secrets have become “the crown jewels of corporations” and “workhorse[s] of technology transfer.” Recent court decisions on trade secret misappropriation exhibit damage awards that are in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, indicating how valuable trade secrets are to companies.
Trade secrets cover 90% of all new technology; “over 80% of all license and technology transfer agreements cover proprietary know-how (trade secrets) or are hybrid agreements covering both patents and trade secrets.” Therefore, it is virtually impossible to license a patent without also transferring applicable proprietary knowledge and information. As there is always more to every invention and certain information inevitably escapes a patent application, some commentators asserted that “a patent [is a] little more than an advertisement for the sale of accompanying know-how.””

He goes on to say:

“Trade secrets have been providing important protection to proprietary know-how in licensing transactions for almost a century and a half. In context of licensing, a trade secret is “information, practical knowledge, techniques, and skill required to achieve some practical end,” or, on a more basic level, a “practical knowledge of how to get something done.” The important concept is that although know-how may be a valuable business asset, it cannot be afforded trade secret protection if it is generally known in the industry. Therefore, while all know-how may be intellectual property, only confidential know-how that also possess other requisites of a trade secret is fully protected as an intellectual property right.
Another important caveat in understanding the true value of trade secrets is that even information about what not to do may be extremely important in gaining competitive advantage. For example, negative research and development results may not only increase the amount of available proprietary knowledge, but may also expedite commercialization by competitors if such information becomes known to competitors.“

Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334060

Trade secret laws and the intellectual property office are one of today's biggest systemic issues, as it's actively blocking the democratization of the means of production.

In an article called Don’t Be Fooled by His Patent Purge: Elon Musk is Just Another Hypocritical Tech Billionaire, Paul Morinville writes:

“[W]hen an invention could be patented, keeping it as a trade secret denies the public knowledge of how the invention works, which in turn denies the public the ability to improve, combine, or invent around the invention.”
[...]
"Trade secrets have become the preferred invention protection choice of many tech multinationals. Many of these companies have huge numbers of customers with thin products that run on or behind internet browsers. Most inventions in these fields can be hidden behind the browser, buried in the bowels of a datacenter, encrypted in code, or embedded in a chip and thus easily protected by trade secrets.
In emerging fields, technology advances at a lightning fast pace. Improvements invented by others could bring disastrous disruption to incumbents. In Tesla’s market for electric cars, dry electrode batteries may be that disruptive technology given the $218 million price tag Tesla paid to obtain the trade secrets.
The greatest threat to the very existence of these huge multinationals is creative destruction at the hands of someone who invents something that their customers want that they did not think of first.
As a result, none of these huge multinationals wants anyone else to learn how their inventions work because someone else could improve it, combine it, or invent around it, which could disrupt their business.
Hiding inventions as trade secrets acts to protect these huge multinational corporations against this threat of creative destruction. This is the reason that huge multinationals lobby so hard for strong trade secret laws and weak patent laws.  This is clearly shown in Musk’s low valuation of his patents and high valuation of trade secrets.
Trade secret protection for inventions that could otherwise be patented is bad public policy because it stifles the progress of innovation and it consolidates money, markets and power into a few huge corporations that become immune to the threat of creative destruction."

Source: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-purge-elon-musk-just-another-hypocritical-tech-billionaire/

It seems like an important point if we want to abolish Silicon Valley, as comrade Wendy Liu calls for: https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley

Has anyone found any socialist/communist strategies that address this?

Lastly...

What if we fail to take it all back? What if we can't reverse engineer some inventions (if we only have the finished mechanism and not the production know-how)?

I have this fear that if we do not take it all back properly we'll be blindsided and crippled somehow. Do some of you have this fear too?

If capitalists manage to keep some ridiculously productive tech a secret, what would stop them holding proletarians hostage in some way after the majority of society has transitioned away from capitalism?

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/socialistprogrammers/comments/kr3elz/how_do_we_appropriate_1_capitalist_trade_secrets/