Edison built General Electric into an industrial behemoth by weaponizing his patent portfolio. He didn't just invent—he strategically licensed, monopolized, and vertically integrated. His stake in GE alone ballooned to $100M+ because he understood equity compounding and corporate ownership. Curie, conversely, treated her radium discoveries like public goods. She refused patents, published openly, and donated her research freely to the scientific community. In financial terms, she left billions on the table because she viewed commercialization as a betrayal of scientific integrity.

The business model difference is stark. Edison operated in the Gilded Age when industrial titans could lock down entire markets through patent thickets and anti-competitive licensing deals. He sued competitors relentlessly (the AC/DC current wars being prime example) and extracted maximum rent from every invention. Curie worked in early-20th-century academia where the social contract still favored knowledge-sharing. She received two Nobel Prizes but minimal royalties—the Swedish Academy gave prestige, not percentage points. Edison would have licensed radium production to every hospital and manufacturer on Earth; Curie just wanted it to cure cancer.

Adjusting for inflation and opportunity cost, Curie's $9M net worth represents perhaps 3-5% of what she could have accumulated. If she'd patented radium extraction, founded a medical isotope company, and taken a standard industrialist's cut, she'd easily rival Edison's $217M. Instead, she became history's most consequential non-billionaire—her legacy in human welfare is immeasurable, but her financial legacy remains a cautionary tale about the premium capitalism places on ruthless commercialization over scientific altruism.