4 ms·

Arguably, they already do tax IP(for patents) by maintence fees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_(patent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenan

by graeham 10y ago

Arguably, they already do tax IP(for patents) by maintence fees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_(patent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_(patent) https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-paymen... The problem with liability being < assessed values is then what's the incentive to work for a licensing deal? Why pay for a license when, worst case, you'll be taken to court to pay the same amount?

patates 10y ago
> Why pay for a license when, worst case, you'll be taken to court to pay the same amount? First of all: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. You don't pay the full price of the intellectual property when licencing it, do you? The value of the intellectual property should be based on it's market value which would, in a perfect world be based on the expected benefit from that property. Also, paying for the damages for unlicensed usage does not mean you can keep using it unlicensed further on.
stymaar 10y ago
> The problem with liability being < assessed values is then what's the incentive to work for a licensing deal? Wut ? “assessed value” ≠ “licence fee” ! The value of Windows for Microsoft is not the same thing that the value of one licence of Windows for your company ... The proposed mecanism would just prevent Intellectual Vulture & co to gather a lot of worthless patents and then claim millions un court for patent infrigment.
beagle3 10y ago
First, maintenance fees are very low compared to legal action, and independent of whether the patent is worth $10 or $10B (or you believe it does). So is is entirely unlike a property tax. > The problem with liability being < assessed values is then what's the incentive to work for a licensing deal? If you upload a song you like, and tax has been paid for it as worth $100,000 that year, (which would be $1000/year), and you can license it for $1, then - yes, you have an incentive to license it for $1, because you are otherwise liable for as much as $100,000 (but not more[0]). Think this is stupid? Because under the current law, you are liable for $150,000. That's what the law says, anyway. [0] Except for e.g. willful infringement laws, which would make you pay 3x as much potentially - another answer to your "what's the incentive".

by graeham 10y ago

patates 10y ago

> Why pay for a license when, worst case, you'll be taken to court to pay the same amount? First of all: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. You don't pay the full price of the intellectual property when licencing it, do you? The value of the intellectual property should be based on it's market value which would, in a perfect world be based on the expected benefit from that property. Also, paying for the damages for unlicensed usage does not mean you can keep using it unlicensed further on.

stymaar 10y ago

> The problem with liability being < assessed values is then what's the incentive to work for a licensing deal? Wut ? “assessed value” ≠ “licence fee” ! The value of Windows for Microsoft is not the same thing that the value of one licence of Windows for your company ... The proposed mecanism would just prevent Intellectual Vulture & co to gather a lot of worthless patents and then claim millions un court for patent infrigment.

beagle3 10y ago

First, maintenance fees are very low compared to legal action, and independent of whether the patent is worth $10 or $10B (or you believe it does). So is is entirely unlike a property tax. > The problem with liability being < assessed values is then what's the incentive to work for a licensing deal? If you upload a song you like, and tax has been paid for it as worth $100,000 that year, (which would be $1000/year), and you can license it for $1, then - yes, you have an incentive to license it for $1, because you are otherwise liable for as much as $100,000 (but not more[0]). Think this is stupid? Because under the current law, you are liable for $150,000. That's what the law says, anyway. [0] Except for e.g. willful infringement laws, which would make you pay 3x as much potentially - another answer to your "what's the incentive".