Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by corin_ » Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 5:40 PM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #138

corin_ wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" arrangem…

I wasn't getting into the question of whether IP should be taxed, merely replying to this statement:

  If they insist that its intellectual "property", then they'd best start treating it like property.

So regardless of whether IP should be taxed, the argument for taxing it is not that all property is taxed - because it isn't.

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

#142

Post by AppSec » Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 5:48 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #35

jonmc12 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, we should be free to invent. Option B should be that if an inventor can show a clean history of evolving an idea, it should be allowed to freely enter the market. Ideas evolve over time, and the originate from something. Perhaps if inventors were willing to register their invention documents through a set of steps mapping to something like the Technology Readiness Level ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technolo…

I love the idea of a "show your work" patent system, but could it possibly work in real life? Does anyone do anything like this currently?

It actually doesn't work, since the only thing required for a patent is the ability for it to be executed. The patent applicant doesn't need to be the one doing it or need to be working with it. All the applicant needs is the knowledge that an expert in the industry believes it can be implemented.

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

#143

Post by beagle3 » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 3:25 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #140

beagle3 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fac…

Ok, so you say you're not in Europe, and you say you're not a troll. So I would have to assume that you are misinformed (the other alternative based on the coherence of _this_ post, is that you are drunk).

> the fact that we are having this debate shows that legitimizing patents is still a challenge in the US

No. Hackernews and reddit are two places that don't consider patents legitimate. Outside of those two, there are fewer things in the US at large that are considered MORE legitimate than patents. (If we had a discussion here discussing how evil Zebras are, would that indicate Zebra innocence is still a challenge in the US?)

> it is Econ 101 that monopolies pass-on price increases.

No. Apparently, you've failed Econ 101. There's a huge difference between essential monopolies and inessential monopolies - if I open a banana stand, I have a monopoly over selling bananas in that stand. Does that mean I can pass on any price increases? Yes, if everyone needs a banana AND there is no alternative supplier close enough (making me an essential monopoly). Otherwise, no. Patents are mostly for very limited and inessential monopolies, and they therefore CANNOT do that.

> 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.

I have no idea what you were trying to say here.

The important thing to note is that the baseline is not a patent-free world. The baseline is a world in which patents are legitimate, cheap, and let the patent owner set the value (including infinite value, stopping others from using that patent) without any increase to that cheap fixed value of the patent (beyond the costs of litigation)

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

#144

Post by beagle3 » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 3:31 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #141

beagle3 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" arrangem…

I wasn't getting into the question of whether IP should be taxed, merely replying to this statement: If they insist that its intellectual "property", then they'd best start treating it like property. So regardless of whether IP should be taxed, the argument for taxing it is not that all property is taxed - because it isn't.

> regardless of whether IP should be taxed, the argument for taxing it is not that all property is taxed - because it isn't.

That's true. But hard-to-hide expensive stuff (houses, cars, land) IS taxed because it is hard-to-hide and expensive, and patents could equally well have the same fate.