8 ms·

If the owners/companies no longer exist, then I would think the IP should be free by default. Perhaps that's another law to work on...

arcbyte 3y ago
In 2010 you start a company, wholly owned by you. In 2011 you obtain a patent wholly owned by the company. In 2012 you fail to pay the franchise tax and filing paperwork for your company so the state dissolves it. You don't care because you aren't making money. In 2013 another company starts making a product that infringes on your patent. You are the defacto owner of the patent. This is because you were the owner of the company when it was terminated. All of its assets and liabilities devolved to you. No action was required of you for this to happen, it just happens. Now imagine this business was actually a joint venture between two wholly owned subsidiaries of two different holding companies, one of which was public but has gone bankrupt and the other was private but subsequently merged with a public conglomerate that spun off a child company, keeping only 40% of its stock after IPO. The patent is still owned by people, but good luck finding them all.
- gbear605 3y ago
  The purpose of a patent, generally speaking, is to encourage innovation by giving the creator legally protected time in which they can exclusively use that innovation. If they don’t use the innovation but someone else wants to, society is improved by dissolving that patent, even if the owner could theoretically be traced to some person.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Society is not improved if a beaurocrat can nullify people's inventions. Who decides what "using" is? Why do we need to pay taxes to employ those people? We have patent law, which is already a lovely gravy train for the state.
    - horsawlarway 3y ago
      > Society is not improved if a beaurocrat can nullify people's inventions. Who decides what "using" is? This is reversing the natural order of things. That bureaucrat isn't nullifying fucking ANYTHING. That bureaucrat is artificially limiting who is allowed to create/use a thing. The natural state of the information is: "Use this - it's free". The whole of humanity might exist because mirror neurons literally go: "Hey - I can do that too!". It's only when you add a monstrously complex and entirely artificial patent system on top of things that it gets complex. So we're ALREADY deciding who is allowed to use things, and it's already artificial and bureaucratic. All this does is fucking stop making it worse. And patent/copywrite is already so god damn egregious as a system. I'm firmly in the camp of "nuke it from orbit". It's time to try something other than this hideous abusive system.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        It's hard to know what point you're making, although your aggression is (hopefully) a sign of how extremely you care about this topic. I agree that patents are odd here, but the solution isn't to patch in more power to bureaucrats over the top of the other power. You seem to be saying this at the end as well, so, as I say, I'm not sure what point you're making. But your excitement on this topic is appreciated.
        horsawlarway 3y ago
        > I agree that patents are odd here, but the solution isn't to patch in more power to bureaucrats over the top of the other power. What is confusing here? The entire structure is already a perversion of the natural world. If we did not have our government, and the rules that it enforces (those "bureaucrats" you don't seem to like), then there is no "invention" to be nullified. They already have this power. They enforce it through violence and imprisonment (tools reserved officially to the government). If the bureaucrats want your idea - they will take it, because they are the only thing stopping them from doing so. The question is not: "Will the government nullify my invention?!?!?". It's - "What might my life have been like if the government did not restrict SO many people from competing at all - by artificially stopping them from using the tools and ideas they see around them? (for fairly ridiculous time periods)"
  - FemmeAndroid 3y ago
    The patent renewal system is the attempt to solve this. In the case that the patent isn’t wanted, or the patent owner goes out of business, the patent owner won’t pay the annual renewal (in most countries; the US is once every 4 years) and after the (usually) 6 month grace period, the patent is public. The invention as disclosed and documented in the patent is free to the world.
- fragmede 3y ago
  So hire a PI. If someone doesn't want to be found, that's one thing, but if they're just out there, living their lives normally, that's not insurmountable. In reality, it's a bunch of work which costs money, and if you don't have to spend that money, why would you?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Tough luck. If it's that important, register your ownership interest somewhere and keep that property claim alive by renewing it once every few years for a nominal fee. Property rights are not so important that the world should stop turning if a property owner has retired to a cave without leaving any forwarding address.
RobotToaster 3y ago
In the UK, if a company that owns intellectual property is dissolved, it becomes bona vacantia, and is officially property of the King. There's an entire government department dedicated to selling this property.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Wait, are you telling me that the UK actually has a halfway-decent solution to the orphan works problem!?
  - RobotToaster 3y ago
    The process is a little arcane, but it's documented here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/buy-intellectual-property-bvc8 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/buy-intellectual-property-bvc8
  - DropInIn 3y ago
    Only if you think that the IP remaining restricted rather than entering the public domain is a halfway decent solution..... Arguably the American model of abandonment is better because abandoned IP doesn't actually result in any lawsuits, while that UK model is built to effectively encourage them.
  - Nemo_bis 3y ago
    They wouldn't be orphan if we knew who holds the corresponding rights. Selling the liquidated estates could help with certain out of commerce works, but I wonder how many such cases exists. Usually other publishers buy the catalogue just to keep it quiet and reduce the competition, even if they have no intention to reprint anything.
beefield 3y ago
> If the owners/companies no longer exist, then I would think the IP should be free by default. Perhaps that's another law to work on... I think I have even more elegant solution. All IP should be subject to a tax (or maintenance fee or whatever you want to call it). As soon as the IP owner fails to pay the tax, IP falls to public domain irrevocably. The actual structure of the tax can be subject to debate. I would propose a highly progressive tax over time, for example for patents something like $100 for the first year, then doubling every year. Seriously, why should IP not be taxed? We tax almost everything else that is possible to tax. Especially given it is far from certain that IP is net benefit for society. (I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt though, that's why I am not proposing to abolish IP completely)
- diegoholiveira 3y ago
  The money made with the IP is taxable. I can support your proposal only if the IP taxes are deductible from incoming tax.
  - redeeman 3y ago
    and the money i use to pay for goods was already charged income tax, and then it gets charged sales tax, which is bigger than otherwise since it is a percentage, and the workers who produced the product is income taxed, and have to pay salestax for their food...... its hardly as if the regimes around the world have any problems with taxing things to hell
- DropInIn 3y ago
  Under your model any author would immediately lose protections unless they could afford the fees.... If you can't see the glaring problems there then there's no hope for you.... But hopefully you immediately recognize that it hurts the least advantaged the greatest while also providing a mechanism for anticompetitive behavior under the guise of following your precept (make the fee high enough and only established authors/publishers can hold any copyright). I really get the feeling you didn't think it through at all....
  - 3y ago

arcbyte 3y ago

In 2010 you start a company, wholly owned by you. In 2011 you obtain a patent wholly owned by the company. In 2012 you fail to pay the franchise tax and filing paperwork for your company so the state dissolves it. You don't care because you aren't making money. In 2013 another company starts making a product that infringes on your patent. You are the defacto owner of the patent. This is because you were the owner of the company when it was terminated. All of its assets and liabilities devolved to you. No action was required of you for this to happen, it just happens. Now imagine this business was actually a joint venture between two wholly owned subsidiaries of two different holding companies, one of which was public but has gone bankrupt and the other was private but subsequently merged with a public conglomerate that spun off a child company, keeping only 40% of its stock after IPO. The patent is still owned by people, but good luck finding them all.

gbear605 3y ago
The purpose of a patent, generally speaking, is to encourage innovation by giving the creator legally protected time in which they can exclusively use that innovation. If they don’t use the innovation but someone else wants to, society is improved by dissolving that patent, even if the owner could theoretically be traced to some person.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Society is not improved if a beaurocrat can nullify people's inventions. Who decides what "using" is? Why do we need to pay taxes to employ those people? We have patent law, which is already a lovely gravy train for the state.
  - horsawlarway 3y ago
    > Society is not improved if a beaurocrat can nullify people's inventions. Who decides what "using" is? This is reversing the natural order of things. That bureaucrat isn't nullifying fucking ANYTHING. That bureaucrat is artificially limiting who is allowed to create/use a thing. The natural state of the information is: "Use this - it's free". The whole of humanity might exist because mirror neurons literally go: "Hey - I can do that too!". It's only when you add a monstrously complex and entirely artificial patent system on top of things that it gets complex. So we're ALREADY deciding who is allowed to use things, and it's already artificial and bureaucratic. All this does is fucking stop making it worse. And patent/copywrite is already so god damn egregious as a system. I'm firmly in the camp of "nuke it from orbit". It's time to try something other than this hideous abusive system.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      It's hard to know what point you're making, although your aggression is (hopefully) a sign of how extremely you care about this topic. I agree that patents are odd here, but the solution isn't to patch in more power to bureaucrats over the top of the other power. You seem to be saying this at the end as well, so, as I say, I'm not sure what point you're making. But your excitement on this topic is appreciated.
      - horsawlarway 3y ago
        > I agree that patents are odd here, but the solution isn't to patch in more power to bureaucrats over the top of the other power. What is confusing here? The entire structure is already a perversion of the natural world. If we did not have our government, and the rules that it enforces (those "bureaucrats" you don't seem to like), then there is no "invention" to be nullified. They already have this power. They enforce it through violence and imprisonment (tools reserved officially to the government). If the bureaucrats want your idea - they will take it, because they are the only thing stopping them from doing so. The question is not: "Will the government nullify my invention?!?!?". It's - "What might my life have been like if the government did not restrict SO many people from competing at all - by artificially stopping them from using the tools and ideas they see around them? (for fairly ridiculous time periods)"
- FemmeAndroid 3y ago
  The patent renewal system is the attempt to solve this. In the case that the patent isn’t wanted, or the patent owner goes out of business, the patent owner won’t pay the annual renewal (in most countries; the US is once every 4 years) and after the (usually) 6 month grace period, the patent is public. The invention as disclosed and documented in the patent is free to the world.
fragmede 3y ago
So hire a PI. If someone doesn't want to be found, that's one thing, but if they're just out there, living their lives normally, that's not insurmountable. In reality, it's a bunch of work which costs money, and if you don't have to spend that money, why would you?
anigbrowl 3y ago
Tough luck. If it's that important, register your ownership interest somewhere and keep that property claim alive by renewing it once every few years for a nominal fee. Property rights are not so important that the world should stop turning if a property owner has retired to a cave without leaving any forwarding address.

RobotToaster 3y ago

In the UK, if a company that owns intellectual property is dissolved, it becomes bona vacantia, and is officially property of the King. There's an entire government department dedicated to selling this property.

kmeisthax 3y ago
Wait, are you telling me that the UK actually has a halfway-decent solution to the orphan works problem!?
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  The process is a little arcane, but it's documented here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/buy-intellectual-property-bvc8 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/buy-intellectual-property-bvc8
- DropInIn 3y ago
  Only if you think that the IP remaining restricted rather than entering the public domain is a halfway decent solution..... Arguably the American model of abandonment is better because abandoned IP doesn't actually result in any lawsuits, while that UK model is built to effectively encourage them.
- Nemo_bis 3y ago
  They wouldn't be orphan if we knew who holds the corresponding rights. Selling the liquidated estates could help with certain out of commerce works, but I wonder how many such cases exists. Usually other publishers buy the catalogue just to keep it quiet and reduce the competition, even if they have no intention to reprint anything.

beefield 3y ago

> If the owners/companies no longer exist, then I would think the IP should be free by default. Perhaps that's another law to work on... I think I have even more elegant solution. All IP should be subject to a tax (or maintenance fee or whatever you want to call it). As soon as the IP owner fails to pay the tax, IP falls to public domain irrevocably. The actual structure of the tax can be subject to debate. I would propose a highly progressive tax over time, for example for patents something like $100 for the first year, then doubling every year. Seriously, why should IP not be taxed? We tax almost everything else that is possible to tax. Especially given it is far from certain that IP is net benefit for society. (I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt though, that's why I am not proposing to abolish IP completely)

diegoholiveira 3y ago
The money made with the IP is taxable. I can support your proposal only if the IP taxes are deductible from incoming tax.
- redeeman 3y ago
  and the money i use to pay for goods was already charged income tax, and then it gets charged sales tax, which is bigger than otherwise since it is a percentage, and the workers who produced the product is income taxed, and have to pay salestax for their food...... its hardly as if the regimes around the world have any problems with taxing things to hell
DropInIn 3y ago
Under your model any author would immediately lose protections unless they could afford the fees.... If you can't see the glaring problems there then there's no hope for you.... But hopefully you immediately recognize that it hurts the least advantaged the greatest while also providing a mechanism for anticompetitive behavior under the guise of following your precept (make the fee high enough and only established authors/publishers can hold any copyright). I really get the feeling you didn't think it through at all....
- 3y ago