Slashdot Mirror
Patents on Tax Reduction Strategies a Problem
EsonLinji writes "The International Herald Tribune has an article about how some lawyers are realising that patents on tax reduction strategies (a business method) might be a problem. The article states that there are already 50 such patents with more on the way, and at least one lawsuit. Particularly worrying is the idea of needing a license to follow the law. Fortunately, some of the laws get that this is a problem. Tax patents, the lawyers wrote, amount to 'government-issued barbed wire' to keep some taxpayers from getting equal treatment under the tax code."
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
( and, yes, it does say 'state', but the US Supreme Court has ruled that this usually applies to federal law also. )
If, however, a tax dodge only comes into use several years after the tax law, then I would agree that the dodge was not obvious.
Having said that I still don't think that there should be patents on things like this, but that is another matter.
We waste incredible amounts of time and money working around our Byzantine internal revenue code. There's a better way to handle this.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Don't forget to look at history to see itself repreating. China is a nice boogieman oligarchy to compare to but never was a democracy and has no democratic tradition. The US as it is now (with so many corporate friendly laws and taxes that you'd almost think it's inhabited only by companies not people) looks much more like Italy and germany around 1930 - 1935. The only way you can get something changed in your country if you are part of a larger block. You cannot be non-religious (you get labelled religion:atheism) or not part of a political group (only republican, democrat, libertarian or leftwing extremist, you vote according to the block you're in, not after carefull deliberation). Any political opposition gets labelled anti-american.
There are plenty of other signs of approaching fascism in the US, but I am afraid few inside will recognise them. After all, it is unpatriottic to think such toughts, and in times of war, you should not question the army/the president/gouvernment...
Even more interesting, how about when the patent holder attempts to sue the tax office for patent infringement, when the Tax office changes the law to close of that patented tax loophole. The claim would be for a percentage of all government taxation that could have been avoided via the use of that tax loophole for the life of the patent.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"How can you patent a business method on following the law?"
Easy. It's done all the time with the law of nature, so why not with the other laws? It's even more justified to patent following this law, since it's something that we have written by ourselves. Something that should not be justified, is to patent facts, like they do in science like physics and medicine.
c++;
"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers."
I'm a software engineer. I work in Windows, and frequently have to work with ** shudder ** Microsoft SQL Server. Now, I'd much rather work in Unix; or maybe something better. But if you start making lots of stipulations about what you're willing to work with, you'll find it harder to find work period. My choices of systems are constrained by my customers' choices.
Why is this relevant?
I suspect most lawyers, if they could, would change a number of laws. That's probably why many lawyers decide to become politicians; but for the vast majority that don't, they're stuck working with what they have or not working at all.
It always sticks in my craw when politicians use lawyers for scapegoats. The lawyers are just making a living with what the politicians hand them.
Now it is true that business patents started after a court decision allowing them; however that court decision interpreted a statute, which happened to have an unintended consequence. It has been within the power of politicans ever since to fix this oversight, but they haven't because the average person is much less important to them than people seeking to turn business practices into a form of property.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm actually writing a paper in my patent seminar on this particular topic. In the Ways and Means Hearing on this topic, this exact point was brought up. The response was that the "novelty" requirement (35 USC 102) in patent law would keep the most basic and well-known strategies from being patented. However, this leaves open those strategies that are less well-known or not yet developed techniques for patenting.
Patents are also close to equivalent to a taxation right on a specific way to implement an idea.
Wether handing out taxation rights to private parties really has a place in modern society and in a free market is dubious, particularly when the system is far removed from any democratic control.
Nice try. Here's the Straight Dope article on it.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Obviously patent law is broken. The Federal Circuit doesn't believe so, but they really are not the brightest bulbs on the tree. So let it happen. Let companies continue to duke it out over ridiculous patents, and, in fact, try and get blocking patents on everything you can until the stench of bad law reaches so high up, the Supreme Court finally recognizes that the FC are a bunch of wanks who need to be shut down, redefines obvious to be obvious, and fixes patent law.
I say let them drown!
In TJ, Mexicali, Windsor, Vancouver, Niagra Falls.
This fair tax is only fair if you think rich people would give up and not try to find ways around it.
There wouldn't be a single car sold in Detroit, Port Huron, Seattle, Buffalo, San Diego (probably LA), or any city near Canada or Mexico.
And that'd just be the start. Rich people would find ways to lease stuff so they never actually buy stuff (it IS a sales tax).
We have an income tax, which made rich people find ways to never realize income, thus we had to modify our tax code to fix that.
There's no reason to think the rich wouldn't find a way to avoid a sales tax just like they avoid income tax.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95