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.
Because they were told that specific shippers were shipping illegal drugs, and they continued doing business with them anyway
I've read your link - and I don't think it says what you think it says.
In any case it is not illegal to do business with someone merely because they have previously been caught doing something illegal. As the UPS terms of service state, responsibility for any illegal shipment lies clearly with the client and not with UPS. The legality or otherwise of shipments is judged individually.
The only possible case the DOJ has against UPS is that they were actively targeting illegal business, and even there it is not entirely clear what law it is that they are breaking.
The evidence for that, given your link, is at best muddy
The whole thing looks more like "pay 40 million to make this go away" than anything else.
Funny thing is - I take his argumetn about the impossibility of distinguishing between "discoveries" and "inventions" and I can't disagree with any of it. The only thing is - I come to the exact opposite conclusion: NOTHING should be patentable.