I'm a little lost here. Your argument is that this is part of a grand conspiracy in academia to protect. . . big textile?
The thing about conspiracies is that there tends to be a purpose behind them. What would be the point of this one? That the cotton gin couldn't be patented? How would that possibly impact any single person today? What would be the incentive for continuing this conspiracy?
In general, historians are pretty quick to correct mistakes from their past interpretations of facts. So why would this be different?
That would be 2025 logic, but at the time it was not "big textile", it was universal control over industrialization. As if big textile is any different than big oil, all the same owners today as in 1800, owning everything and protecting that claim to rights.
The point however is not that of protecting copyright, but that copyright protection was invented to usurp technology which was not truly invented. This is how controlling history controls the present, for if all roads lead back to "we invented this and own it" then all roads forwards must pay that toll. If the narrative were not true, then the premise could not hold.
The thing about conspiracies is that there tends to be a purpose behind them. What would be the point of this one? That the cotton gin couldn't be patented? How would that possibly impact any single person today? What would be the incentive for continuing this conspiracy?
In general, historians are pretty quick to correct mistakes from their past interpretations of facts. So why would this be different?