3 ms·

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

jlgreco 14y ago
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 Why should unpublished books be any less taxable than un-implemented patents?
- kstrauser 14y ago
  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?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    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.

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?

kstrauser 14y ago
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?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  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.