The company or companies that make this work commercially will probably have patents out the wazoo. And manufacturers that use their technology will have to pay them license fees, which would probably be included in the price of the product.

It has the potential to be economically much more efficient than growing livestock and massively increase the production of meat. The article doesn't talk much about the potential economic impact, focusing instead on environmental and ethical concerns, but considering the amount of land that is currently devoted to livestock grazing that would be able to be put to other uses when it becomes obsolete...it really is a game-changer that will make the human race much better off.

The people who make it work will deserve the billions they'll earn.

Did you take my comment to mean that I'm opposed to this technology or that I would actually expect consumers to pay for patents directly? It was merely a very poorly received joke, downmod away as humor is really not appreciated on hacker news, but at least know that it was sarcasm.