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

Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#51

Post by slapshot »

kstrauser wrote: post #44
politician wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that IP owners owe (real estate) property taxes?

Yes. It's essentially the same as real estate property in that the petitioner asks the government to state that a given more-or-less well defined area is granted to their exclusive use. In those circumstances, why wouldn't it be subject to taxes by the same government that is giving them the privilege of that sole use? I'm not asserting that IP owners currently owe property taxes. I am asserting that if they've asked…

> I'm not asserting that IP owners currently owe property taxes.

Except you did when you called them tax evaders.

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#52

Post by kstrauser »

jlgreco wrote: post #49
mdonahoe wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you patent it, granting you exclusive right to that idea.

What if I copyright something? The text I am typing right now is under copyright by default, if I write something particularly brilliant here, can I expect to owe a good deal of taxes? If not, why not? Both are intellectual "property", and both clearly can have very real value. Why should unpublished books be any less taxable than un-implemented patents?

Good question. Why not, indeed? If you're stating that a property has a cash value, such as by selling it or suing for that amount in real damages, then why shouldn't you have to pay taxes to the government that protects your right to copy it?

Ideas aren't a naturally limited resource. It takes government intervention to declare that an idea is owned by one specific party. It seems only fair that the beneficiary of that intervention should be expected to support the government that makes it possible.

By the way, I have no problem whatsoever with property rights. Although I think software patents are BS, if the government says they exist, then they exist. I just don't think it's fair that these non-practicing entities are paying their fair share to support the system that's netting them a paycheck. Why would I have to pay taxes on a rent house that I lease out, but they don't have to pay taxes on a patent that they lease out?

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#53

Post by SethMurphy »

illuminate wrote: post #38
SethMurphy wrote: post #29

For those interested in the actual patent here is a link: http://www.surfcast.com/images/pdfs/US6724403.pdf I particularly find the following quote interesting from the last line on the first page: "The present invention is intended to operate in a platform independent manner."

In that they are interested in suing as many platform developers as possible?

No, in that a claim can be so specific and so vague at the same time.

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#54

Post by kstrauser »

slapshot wrote: post #51
kstrauser wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's essentially the same as real estate property in that the petitioner asks the government to state that a given more-or-less well defined area is granted to their exclusive use. In those circumstances, why wouldn't it be subject to taxes by the same government that is giving them the privilege of that sole use? I'm not asserting that IP owners currently owe property taxes. I am asserting that if they've asked…

> I'm not asserting that IP owners currently owe property taxes. Except you did when you called them tax evaders.

I presume you're familiar with conjecture, such that "if these hypothetical conditions were really true, then this would be a consequence".

If patents were appropriately labelled as taxable property, then they would be tax evaders (unless they chose to value that property at $0.00).

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#55

Post by makomk »

nitrogen wrote: post #22
at-fates-hands wrote: post #17

I know there has been a spat of these recently, but I always think about Robert Kearns and his lifelong battle against Ford for his intermittent windshield wiper patent. As much as we hate patent trolls, once and a while, there is an exception to rule which proves us all wrong.

Is an intermittent windshield wiper really worthy of a 20-year monopoly?

Ford thought it worthwhile enough to steal the design from him when he came to show it to them and fight him in court for years for the right to use it without paying, so it might well be "worthy of a 20-year monopoly".

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#56

Post by bduerst »

rbanffy wrote: post #42
bduerst wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on how much you have invested in it.

How much you spend to invent something is irrelevant. The criteria revolve around usefulness and non obviousness.

It's completely relevant.

Ensuring distribution of costs for new technology is one of the primary reasons for having patents in the first place.

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#57

Post by bduerst »

thirdtruck wrote: post #41
bduerst wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on how much you have invested in it.

And even then, I could spend the rest of my life on digging holes and refilling them. I might have invested countless hours in such effort, but that does not grant it any inherent value.

Did Ford try to infringe on your patent for hole digging?

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#58

Post by jlgreco »

kstrauser wrote: post #52
jlgreco wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I copyright something? The text I am typing right now is under copyright by default, if I write something particularly brilliant here, can I expect to owe a good deal of taxes? If not, why not? Both are intellectual "property", and both clearly can have very real value. Why should unpublished books be any less taxable than un-implemented patents?

Good question. Why not, indeed? If you're stating that a property has a cash value, such as by selling it or suing for that amount in real damages, then why shouldn't you have to pay taxes to the government that protects your right to copy it? Ideas aren't a naturally limited resource. It takes government intervention to declare that an idea is owned by one specific party. It seems only fair that the beneficiary of t…

I don't think that claiming damages implies a worth that should necessarily be taxable. If I am in an automobile accident and my spine is destroyed, I don't think anybody would suggest that since my spine is worth something to me that I should have been paying taxes on it.

Paying taxes to ensure copyright protection would basically have the real world effect of pealing back default copyright. No works would be protected unless the creator went through the trouble of registering^Wpaying tax for that work.

I don't think society would be better off without default copyright, so copyrighted works must remain effectively untaxed "properties".

The problem I am having here is that you are conflating physical property with intellectual "property" just because you want to go after patent trolls. What you are proposing would not be limited in effect to the people you dislike though.

If Bob Handyman were to invent a new type of, say, catalytic converter, in his garage, this would be of immense value to the automotive industry. This would therefore be an incredibly "valuable" patent. (And Bob would of course have to patent his new invention, unless he were a fool.) ..But under your proposal he would then be responsible for a massive tax that he could never dream of paying. And if he didn't pay this tax, automotive companies would then be free to use his invention without giving him anything?

That is crazy.

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#59

Post by jlgreco »

kstrauser wrote: post #45
slapshot wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting idea, but which Maine tax would apply? I'm not a Maine tax lawyer, but it looks like Maine has plenty of taxes, including a "Blueberry Tax" [1][2], but there doesn't appear to be a general assets tax. Any corporate income from licensing the patent would be taxed just the same as any other income. Maine's property tax appears to apply only to "real property" (land) and "tangible" personal property [3] (…

I would be willing to bet that cash-strapped legislatures might be interested in the idea. In fact, I plan to test idea by suggesting it to as many legislators as will listen.

How do you envision this system not placing undue burden on small inventors?

This proposed change would take the patent system, from something that is supposed to promote the progress of science, and turn it completely on it's head. Any small inventor that dared patent something worth-while would be forced to either turn a massive profit on it before tax season, sell it before tax season, or risk it being stolen with few substantial penalties.

Companies with deep pockets would have a field day taking advantage of inventors, they would ignore patents if the inventor declared it worth little for tax reasons. Or, if the inventor claimed the true value of the patent for taxes, they would buy out the inventor at cut-rate prices after taxes had ruined him.

Re: Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

#60

Post by rbanffy »

bduerst wrote: post #56
rbanffy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much you spend to invent something is irrelevant. The criteria revolve around usefulness and non obviousness.

It's completely relevant. Ensuring distribution of costs for new technology is one of the primary reasons for having patents in the first place.

Are you proposing patents should be granted for those who spend tons of money, regardless of how innovative or useful the results of their inventive process are?
Post reply on HN