3 ms·
I think that's pretty much the case for shortening time frame of IP rights. Which means, they shouldn't be treated as property has been traditionally treated. A
by js8 4y ago
I think that's pretty much the case for shortening time frame of IP rights. Which means, they shouldn't be treated as property has been traditionally treated. Although as a socialist, I think perhaps we shouldn't have time unlimited property rights (above certain reasonable boundary, say $10M) in general.
- jesterson 4y agoInteresting, but being very opposite of socialist myself I am wholeheartedly with you here on limiting timeframe of IP. It partially solves the problem. And this arguably should be extended to tangible assets as well - I like Singapore model where housing property is sold for specific timeframe. It simplifies a lot of redevelopment.
- blangk 4y agoSomething like the homestead principle?
- jesterson 4y agoNot precisely so. We tend to think of ownership as in absolute owning of an asset for indefinite time. For a lot of things in Singapore you can ownership (i.e. own it) in that sense, but after sone time you have either to return it or stop using (rendering it useless). This applies to assets like homes, cars, etc. If it’s not feasible to enforce those policies, government just imposes hefty tax on assets, ensuring you extract (or contribute) sufficient added value from asset.