The service they would be paying for is access. You even say "not every one would have access." That is the point. It's not the formula. It's the access.
Exactly as Mises said: The available supply of every commodity is limited.
This is not true of the formula. It may be true of the access. Thus, the formula is not an economic good per se. The access to the formula may or may not be an economic good, depending on how available the access is. But what we're talking about here is an attempt to limit by violence the distribution of an idea which has a limitless available supply in principle. The access is coincidental. Someone may morally control the access, but only if they keep the idea limited to the *matter* where it is stored, i.e., in the gray matter between their ears, or between the ears of those who voluntarily and knowingly agree to keep it secret (or for example in *matter* containing digitized patterns which is not available to others).
Once a third party, who has no explicit obligation, possesses the idea, I see no moral basis for limiting him in copying it for others.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: