I didn't make this up the patent office did. If what you are saying is true in your own mind where are the cops? I don't hear anyone banging on my door yet.
You are confusing laws with company policies just because somebody has "the right to authorize" by law doesn't stop anyone from copying or modifying for profit when properly noted credit is given to the original creator that's copyright and the modifier is protected (and that only counts federally...state laws may differ and state power trumps federal at least in theory according to the constitution)--don't give credit and it's assumed to be plagerism then the modifier could be sued for taking full credit. Selling items second hand is at issue too otherwise vendors would be forced to pay royalties on literature sold at second hand book stores and garage sales everything that is resold no matter how many times would generate billions in royalties to the original creators.
And there is also the issue of foreign patents for similar products there is nothing in patent law preventing two separate inventors from submitting the same patent designs in different nations and selling them wherever they please patents do not protect completely. A submits patent in US B submits same design for patent in UK both start production and distribute their products A cannot sue B for infringement even if both are sold on the same market in the same countries there is a monopoly, but there are loopholes.
The issue with secondhand books is a legal doctrine called "copyright exhaustion" and the first sale doctrine. That is not relevant here. That issue relates specifically to the right to re-sell books, etc. That's different than the situation where you are given a license to use software, you violate the license, you have no more license.
The issue with international patents is you are again wrong. If I have a patent in the US, and you have a patent in the UK, we each have exclusive rights in our own country. I cannot sell my product in the UK and you cannot sell yours in the US. In the US, importing a product that infringes is, itself, infringement. Yes, we can both sell in some other country where no one has a patent. How is that relevant to this discussion?
Your point about "where are the cops" is a strawman argument. Lots of things violate the law but aren't enforced. And cops don't enforce civil law, only criminal law.
And quit confusing "plagiarism" with copyright infringement. I gave you the exact federal statute that defines copyright infringement.
And the "patent office" has nothing to do with copyright, and they didn't "make up" any laws - the laws are written and enacted by congress in 35 USC and 17 USC.
And this is completely wrong: ""the right to authorize" by law doesn't stop anyone from copying or modifying for profit when properly noted credit is given to the original creator that's copyright and the modifier is protected (and that only counts federally...state laws may differ and state power trumps federal at least in theory according to the constitution)"
First, the law most certainly DOES prevent copying or modifying for profit EVEN IF YOU GIVE CREDIT. 17 USC is quite clear - ONLY the copyright holder may copy, unless you are authorized. If the amount of copying is small and fits the other requirements of fair use, you are judicially granted an exception.
Second, the state laws most certainly do NOT trump federal laws here. Patents and copyright are expressly made federal matters under the U.S. constitution under Art. 1, sec.8:
Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
You literally haven't the foggiest idea what you are saying. Instead of arguing by strawman, how about point at a single federal statute that says it's okay to copy or modify a copyrighted work "as long as you give credit?" While you are at it, point at a single state law that addresses copyright or patents.