3 ms·

That only answers why they are valuable, not why they are property. It is the issuing authority that intentional makes licenses into property by honoring them

by gress 12y ago

That only answers why they are valuable, not why they are property. It is the issuing authority that intentional makes licenses into property by honoring them after they have been transferred. The quesion is, why are these licenses honored after a transfer?

dragonwriter 12y ago
There's two aspects to the kinds of licensing at issue: (1) Quantitative limits, and (2) Substantive requirements (which vary by specific license) that limit who can use the license. Letting licenses be transferrable is a way of limiting the public-agency workload in managing #1, because you then have less work managing a queue of pending-availability license requests at the public agency. Even where license are transferrable, the recipient generally has to submit paperwork to the agency and be approved that the meet the appropriate requiremetns related to #2 before they can use the license.
- gress 12y ago
  Aren't your last two points contradictory?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    No, there's a difference between substantive review of applications with availability and queue management (and responding to inquiries) about applications pending availability.
    - gress 12y ago
      Really? It sounds like the agency has to check that the applicant meets the criteria for the license in either case. Where is the cost saving?
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > It sounds like the agency has to check that the applicant meets the criteria for the license in either case. They aren't two alternatives, they are two different functions. Verifying that the applicant meets the criteria once there is a license available (given the quantitative limits) is one function. The other function is managing distribution of the limited number of licenses. The amount of work required by the public agency for the latter function (#1 in my original list) is greater when if the only way for that to happen is people to surrender unused licenses and then new applicants to apply to the issuing agency and be waitlisted until a slot is available than if a license that the current holder can be transferred directly to a new applicant.
        gress 12y ago
        This makes no sense to me. It seems like the major effort would be involved in examining the applicant is necessary in both cases, since that requires collecting individual information and exercising judgement. The difference between the two is simply and administrative choice of how the queue of available licenses is managed.. You have done nothing to explain why the amount of work is any different between the two cases. You have simply asserted that it is.

by gress 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

There's two aspects to the kinds of licensing at issue: (1) Quantitative limits, and (2) Substantive requirements (which vary by specific license) that limit who can use the license. Letting licenses be transferrable is a way of limiting the public-agency workload in managing #1, because you then have less work managing a queue of pending-availability license requests at the public agency. Even where license are transferrable, the recipient generally has to submit paperwork to the agency and be approved that the meet the appropriate requiremetns related to #2 before they can use the license.

gress 12y ago
Aren't your last two points contradictory?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  No, there's a difference between substantive review of applications with availability and queue management (and responding to inquiries) about applications pending availability.
  - gress 12y ago
    Really? It sounds like the agency has to check that the applicant meets the criteria for the license in either case. Where is the cost saving?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > It sounds like the agency has to check that the applicant meets the criteria for the license in either case. They aren't two alternatives, they are two different functions. Verifying that the applicant meets the criteria once there is a license available (given the quantitative limits) is one function. The other function is managing distribution of the limited number of licenses. The amount of work required by the public agency for the latter function (#1 in my original list) is greater when if the only way for that to happen is people to surrender unused licenses and then new applicants to apply to the issuing agency and be waitlisted until a slot is available than if a license that the current holder can be transferred directly to a new applicant.
      - gress 12y ago
        This makes no sense to me. It seems like the major effort would be involved in examining the applicant is necessary in both cases, since that requires collecting individual information and exercising judgement. The difference between the two is simply and administrative choice of how the queue of available licenses is managed.. You have done nothing to explain why the amount of work is any different between the two cases. You have simply asserted that it is.