Not exactly. It's a public/private relationship. Yes the taxpayers are paying them per a contractual agreement, but ultimately they're still private companies performing a service.

It's no different than if you contracted someone to design a house. Unless it's in the contract to state otherwise, you do not own the design of the house.

Except that when you contract to design a house, you get to use the design.

Well yeah, but you don't get to "open source" your house design and use it as you see fit. You get to use the design for a very specific purpose, i.e. building your house.

When we, the taxpayer, contract the design of a new military plane we get to use the design for a very specific military purpose.

I get what you're saying. We paid for it, therefore technically it belongs to us. But that's not how intellectual rights work.

In my economics courses we were taught it's because R&D costs are so high that patenting and holding a temporary monopoly is the only way to recoup those costs.

Bell Labs invented the transistor. Without the transistor there would be no computers. You're viewing this on a computer right now. I think Bell's paid me back.

Sorry for the snark, I think we do get rewarded for the work these companies do. Many of their developments have made our lives better, especially the developments that came out of the Cold War and the Space Race.

But you do have a good point. Maybe patents that come out of these types of arrangements should have a shorter shelf life than typical patents?

Chomsky has given several talks on exactly this topic, check youtube!