Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

blogmaverick.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 144 posts

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#131

Post by artsrc »

corin_ wrote: post #129
noonespecial wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this idea. I can't own a house or a car without paying tax on it every year. If they insist that its intellectual "property", then they'd best start treating it like property.

You don't pay any tax in relation to the fact that a house or a car is property, it's based on (depending where you live) stuff like local services, roads, etc. If you buy a £50k rolex do you have to pay tax on it every year?

This very much depends on jurisdiction. Certainly in California more expensive cars, which use the same roads, pay more tax. Similarly with property, where a more expensive property (perhaps with one by the harbour with the view, which has the same amount of garbage etc. pays more property taxes.

Certainly in say Sydney, property tax (goes to state government revenue, only paid by large land owners) and council rates (pays for garbage collection, paid by everyone) are separate.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#133

Post by corin_ »

artsrc wrote: post #131
corin_ wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't pay any tax in relation to the fact that a house or a car is property, it's based on (depending where you live) stuff like local services, roads, etc. If you buy a £50k rolex do you have to pay tax on it every year?

This very much depends on jurisdiction. Certainly in California more expensive cars, which use the same roads, pay more tax. Similarly with property, where a more expensive property (perhaps with one by the harbour with the view, which has the same amount of garbage etc. pays more property taxes. Certainly in say Sydney, property tax (goes to state government revenue, only paid by large land owners) and council rates…

Here in the UK council tax is tied directly to the value of the property too - it's not because it needs more services, just an extension of the logic behind income tax, that people who can afford to pay more, pay more.

My point remains that you can't tie a link between "if it is property, it gets taxed".

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#134

Post by artsrc »

uiet wrote: post #120
ender7 wrote: post #4

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…

Good software patent: MP3

I remember reading an article by a developer working on audio compression software, where he discussed how hard it was to write compression software without hitting one patent or another. I think without patent protection, music compression would be better that it currently is.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#135

Post by Symmetry »

ig1 wrote: post #97
suking wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is if you want to keep the copyright. If someone copies your copyright and you knowingly do nothing about it, you'll lose it.

You're mistaken. There is no certainly such "abandonment" clause under international copyright law (which binds most countries), and I doubt any individual country as such a law either. There are countless examples where copyright has only been defended in specific cases long after the copyright infringement was known of. Notable examples include the song "Happy Birthday" and the Amiga Kickstart ROM. Feel free to pro…

You certainly don't lose the copyright, but you may lose the ability to sue in situations similar to the one you ignored - because by not suing you gave implied consent to what was going on (at least in the US and I think Britain).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel

EDIT: But IANAL, and on reflection I'm not sure I'm not confusing copyright and trademark here.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#136

Post by Symmetry »

pbh wrote: post #9

According to Wikipedia, Mark Cuban has $2.5 billion. If he thinks the patents are bogus (which I totally believe), why not fight a high profile, precedent setting case? If he thinks the law is broken, why not lobby for patent reform? Or a loser-pays system?

I'm pretty sure that the number of patents you could get revoked with $2.5 billion in legal effort is much smaller than the total number of potentially problematic patents. Unfortunatly fighting bad patents is a classic public good [1] which means its hard to coordinate people on making them.

If your feeling altruistic, however, the EFF is working to help get some particularly egregious examples revoked. [2] I've donated to them and I encourage others to do the same.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

[2] https://w2.eff.org/patent/

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#137

Post by noonespecial »

corin_ wrote: post #129
noonespecial wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this idea. I can't own a house or a car without paying tax on it every year. If they insist that its intellectual "property", then they'd best start treating it like property.

You don't pay any tax in relation to the fact that a house or a car is property, it's based on (depending where you live) stuff like local services, roads, etc. If you buy a £50k rolex do you have to pay tax on it every year?

It would be too hard to track the Rolex. If they could, they would. My business is taxed on all it's assets. Rolexs included.

In theory, they tell you it's services, etc. In practice, they rent-seek everything they can reliably lay eyes on.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#138

Post by beagle3 »

corin_ wrote: post #133
artsrc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This very much depends on jurisdiction. Certainly in California more expensive cars, which use the same roads, pay more tax. Similarly with property, where a more expensive property (perhaps with one by the harbour with the view, which has the same amount of garbage etc. pays more property taxes. Certainly in say Sydney, property tax (goes to state government revenue, only paid by large land owners) and council rates…

Here in the UK council tax is tied directly to the value of the property too - it's not because it needs more services, just an extension of the logic behind income tax, that people who can afford to pay more, pay more. My point remains that you can't tie a link between "if it is property, it gets taxed".

But much like local services, IP needs government services to function -- it's the customs service that stop cheap knockoff imports, it's the legal system that makes others stop using your patent or levy the rent you as a patent/copyright owner seek. (And eventually, it's the police force and prison system that underwrites the legal system's power).

So it's really no different than other "taxes for services" arrangements.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#139

Post by beagle3 »

joe_the_user wrote: post #128
beagle3 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intellectual "Property Tax". Have everyone declare the value of their intellectual "property" (patents, copyrights, trademarks) - each and every item, for that year, on their tax return, and have them pay 1% of the value as "IP tax". That amount is what one pays for a compulsory license or if successfully sued, and up to 3 times that for willful infringement, per year -- and no more. (But of course, patent owner can…

Bad idea for several reasons: 1) Patents are monopolies to begin with. A monopoly can generally pass its costs on to the consumer. So the companies now being harassed by intellectual property leeches would just feel a bigger bits 2) The government getting revenue from patents would be an incentive for the government to expand patents. 3) It would legitimize the patents even further. 4) It would be a quick way for a c…

From the time-of-day you have replied, I have to assume you are in Europe or the UK, whereas this discussion is about the US (if you are in the US, I would have to assume you were misinformed or trolling), so ...

1) Monopolies can pass costs only as so far as they have become essential monopolies - like the power company, Microsoft, US health care or phone companies. But 99.9999% of patents are monopolies on _inessential_ things, which the customer can just avoid if not competitively priced, so they CANNOT pass it on. New cheese making patent may give monopoly on a new cheese kind, but if not competitively priced would keep customers with their old Camembert.

2) that has already happened, that's why in the US, the patent office is already a rubber-stamp, patent examiners have 8 hours to review a patent, and are encouraged to accept the patent rather than reject it.

3) Patents are at the top of the legitimacy scale already in the US. Unfortunately. Which is what Cuban (the original article) is talking about.

4) Well, patents don't do that any differently than anything else. A company could just as well buy a house for $100K, claim it is worth $100M, pay property taxes to the local council, and claim "huge value". If someone is going to be this fraudulent, it doesn't matter if they do it with "house", "patent", "copyright", "trade secret", or any other "property".

You could probably go on, but nothing you mentioned is relevant to the discussion of patents in the US (which is what the original article and my proposal is about), and very little (3, maybe) has any bearing on that discussion in Europe.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#140

Post by joe_the_user »

beagle3 wrote: post #139
joe_the_user wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad idea for several reasons: 1) Patents are monopolies to begin with. A monopoly can generally pass its costs on to the consumer. So the companies now being harassed by intellectual property leeches would just feel a bigger bits 2) The government getting revenue from patents would be an incentive for the government to expand patents. 3) It would legitimize the patents even further. 4) It would be a quick way for a c…

From the time-of-day you have replied, I have to assume you are in Europe or the UK, whereas this discussion is about the US (if you are in the US, I would have to assume you were misinformed or trolling), so ... 1) Monopolies can pass costs only as so far as they have become essential monopolies - like the power company, Microsoft, US health care or phone companies. But 99.9999% of patents are monopolies on _inessen…

Wow...

You begin making a big about you (false) assumption concerning my location. That might be clue you could take a look at the world outside the one construct in your head. In any case, considering that your solution won't happening in any industrialized country, I most looked at this abstract proposal as a chance demonstrate how the intentions of would-be tax-creators often go awry. As to your arguments, the fact that we are having this debate shows that legitimizing patents is still a challenge in the US and it is Econ 101 that monopolies pass-on price increases.

Your initial false assumption might be a clue to your excessive in your own mental constructions.

1 - The point is that software are specifically on things that on can't easily work because they are so. And they sue the companies after their software is implemented.

2-3 - The fact that we're having this debate shows that the question is still in play

4 -

....

Considering your solution will happen in any case, my point were mostly concerning

Post reply on HN