> However, the more important issue with your proposal is an IP holder might not want to declare $0, despite no current revenue, because your proposal would the

> However, the more important issue with your proposal is an IP holder might not want to declare $0, despite no current revenue, because your proposal would then tie that $0 valuation to potential damages in the instance of an infringement case. For that year (alone), and I proposed you set it when you pay your taxes - that is, at the end of the year, in retrospect. In this case, there is never a reason for you to file anything other than $0 unless someone else is making money of it (if you are, then you're already being taxed on it). > Why do you think we would all benefit from Disney losing IP protections? Most of the time its a innovation argument, but is their really any innovation being stifled by the Mouse? It's supposed to be the other way around. We have granted Disney limited monopoly in return for wide availability. "Steamboat Willy" was released with the understanding that it will become public domain within 50 years. The question is, why on earth did we retroactively give another 100 years of that monopoly for free? And even if it wasn't retroactive - the current 100+ years doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. > Why, at some arbitrary point in time, should my company lose IP protections to the cartoon Mouse and all completed works with the Mouse? The only reason they currently have these protections is that they bought them from Congress. Why do you, as an employer, stop paying your employees a couple of months after you fire them / they quit? IP is not the same as work-for-hire, but it doesn't deserve the eternal protection it currently has. I am not aware of anyone who did NOT publish in 1930 because "I only get 50 years of copyright protection". And ... you are arguing a strawman. I did not argue that IP should be abolished. Just introduce an economic cost to the unlimited monopoly, which is currently free.