That is the normal rule for industrial employee inventions.
That is part of the rule written in a typical contract, however the true situation is typically much more complex.
Two scenarios exist:
1. The work is done as part of a project set up by the employer with pre-defined expectations in respect of patent rights. The will have been spelled out in advance - and the decision about whether to patent will have been made before the invention. If that had been the case then CERN would have patented it regardless of TBL's opinion.
2. The work is an independent initiative by an employee whose contract gives some freedom to work on whatever he thinks will be useful. The decision to patent then belongs to the inventor (because only he is aware that something patentable exists). Typically in those cases, although the organisation would own the patent by default, they would usually make some agreement to pay royalties and/or give some control to the inventor.
I believe that the WWW fell under category 2. Hence, although TBL would not have owned the patent the decision would have been his and he would have benefitted from any royalties.
Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems, Philips' Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips' decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge.
Capitalism is not really a system so much as the lack of a system.
It amounts to the statement that - left to their own devices - on average the mass of positive thinking and energetic people will tend to do useful things.
The motivation is not money, in fact attempts to engineer a financial incentive into the system (such as copyright, patents and "performance related pay") usually backfire.
Of course without a system there is no guarantee that all the necessary bases wil be covered - which is why you have to have public provision for security, law and order and (in sensible places) health, education water and sewerage infrastucture, power, roads and public transport
unless --- they are perform content-based censorship and their censors (human/automated?) fail anything they can't read.
Since the book is bilingual (ie everything written in Cornish is repeated in English) even that excuse fails.
Furthermore I would say that copyright acts as a magnet to the dregs of humanity. Its promise of a income (effectively) for ever in exchange for no further effort brings out the worst in people (and brings the worst people in!).
Look at the kibnd of people who run the gatekeepers, the kind of creators who proactively defend copyright - and - yes - the trolls round here - and you will see what I mean.
For you, anyway, it's about taking away the rights of authors and artists. Your rhetorical move in focusing on these evil "gatekeepers" is cute (and I'm sure effective), but at bottom you don't think authors and artists should have any rights to their works.
I suggest you actually read the linked article, which was written by an author who explicitly said that he thought his "rights" were less important than the integrity of the internet and he was prepared to abandon them if the damage caused by keeping them was too great.