The wealth gap starts with a fundamental business philosophy. Edison patented everything—1,093 inventions that created a defensible moat around his innovations. He then monetized those patents aggressively through licensing deals, manufacturing partnerships, and equity stakes in companies like General Electric. Curie, by contrast, published her discoveries openly and refused to patent the radium isolation process, explicitly believing scientific knowledge should be free. She even rejected job offers that would have made her wealthy. This wasn't modesty; it was ideological. Edison viewed invention as a business; Curie viewed it as a calling.

The second factor is timing and market structure. Edison built during the Gilded Age when patent enforcement was ruthless and profitable—he could charge monopoly rents on light bulbs and electrical systems. The GE equity he accumulated became extraordinarily valuable as industrial electrification scaled globally. Curie's work in radioactivity happened in academia and medicine, where institutional structures and funding models didn't generate personal wealth accumulation. She worked for universities and research institutes that owned her output by default.

Finally, there's the compounding effect of capital allocation. Edison reinvested profits into more companies and ventures, leveraging his patent portfolio into board seats and equity stakes that multiplied his wealth. Curie accepted a modest professor's salary and used any recognition to fund more research, not personal assets. Had she licensed her discoveries or accepted corporate research positions with equity compensation, she'd likely have exceeded Edison's fortune—her impact on medicine and nuclear physics was arguably more profound. Instead, she chose a path where net worth and impact moved in opposite directions.