Of course he doesn't know what he's talking about. He has no understand or grasp of how dog intelligence is consistently ranked. Dog intelligence can be identified and ranked on instinctual intelligence, adaptive intelligence, and working/obedience intelligence. The latter is how much time it takes to teach a dog a new command as well as how often the dog responds to the command the first time once taught it. Wolves aren't necessarily intelligent on that last ranking system. Human don't frequently value the instinctive or adaptive intelligences because they're not related to the tasks for which we've bred them however some breeds of dog are incredibly adaptively intelligence (Siberian huskies) and capable of solving problems on their own. Many of the most intelligent breeds by most obedience rankings aren't required to also have strong problem solving intelligence and that may be an undesirable trait when it comes to breeding a working dog.
Why are you fixated on bipedal robots? The use case for them is with repurposing a human oriented facility for use with robotics where it is cost prohibitive to refurbish the facility for use by robotics which there are very few facility out there where work processes involve move objects between point A and point B and the path between A and B involves ladders or stairs. The worst elevation change typically originates from ramps. A tracked or wheeled robot with a low center of gravity is more than capable performing the tasks of porting items from A to B. Bipedal robots are red herrings. Just looking at inventory handling and self-driving cars. There's no bipedal robots in place in either of these technologies but robots have either already replaced thousands of workers or are quickly approaching a way to replace thousands of workers.
The area of robotics which is more important is replicating the human ability to effectively handle variable inputs in a work process. This is why Amazon pickers pluck items from bins retrieved by robots.
Robot workers do not need to conform to human shapes and movements and spaces the robots work in would not need nearly as much space as a human.
Capone is similar but sufficiently different. With the Las Vegas pimp they had the evidence and witnesses to pursue the pimping charges or the tax evasion charges but elected for tax evasion because of the higher sentencing to keep him off the streets for longer. With Capone they lacked the evidence and witnesses to nail him for the organized crime charges but were able to eventually get the evidence to make the tax evasion charges stick to him to get him off the streets. The former is a little more egregious because the prosecution made a conscious decision to punish someone for being a pimp by using the tax laws rather than charging the guy with the crime that directly harmed other individuals. It wasn't even a situation where they failed to convince the jury of the pimp charges and then elected for the tax evasion charges which would at least have a more honorable pallet.
As long as money is being exchanged for money that has equal value it should not be taxed. If you pay $5 USD and receive the equivalent value of $5 USD in BTC then there's nothing to tax.
However, if you spend $5 USD and received $10 USD worth of BTC then you should be reporting the difference of $5 USD as income. Further, if you purchase $5 USD worth of BTC with $5 USD and the value of BTC relative to USD rises so your $5USD worth of BTC is now $500 USD worth of BTC then you would be required to file the difference ($495 USD) as income once you no longer possess the BTC unless the method by which you lost possession of the BTC is not due to theft, loss, or purchasing an item worth $500 USD or less. If you bought something worth $1000 USD with your BTC now worth $500 USD you would have to report $500 as income.
The IRS has a very keen interest on getting the transactional records of individuals who are doing things in BTC because by their definitions there's plenty of opportunity there for tax evasion.
Interstate commerce has frequently been abused since the 1942 ruling in Wickard v. Filburn which pretty much held all economic activity as interstate. Electing not to purchase something is interstate commerce that can be regulated because you are participating in the interstate market by lowering the demand in the market. If you want to talk about twisting the Constitution around, this is probably one of the most egregious rulings from the Supreme Court permitting twisting.
There's nothing wrong about the argument. That's exactly how the IRS classifies income. Anything you receive has a fair market value. That value minus what you pay for that thing is income you earned. The waiver to tuition has a value. If the fair market value of tuition to the university for the program in question is $40,000 and you pay $0 for it then that's $40,000 of income that you earned as a fringe benefit for working for the university in addition to the pay received from the university for the work performed. Up until this point that fringe benefit was an exception codified in law. At best, you're getting hung up on trying to make a distinction between physical and non-physical goods and services when there's no reason to do so.
Charging the student $0 would not likely be a "workaround" that the IRS would accept. The education is obviously not worth $0. If it were then student that do not perform work for the University should not have to pay the earlier $40,000 figure. Any university doing that would just be opening up a legal liability to themselves for failing to report the proper forms to the IRS as well as potentially opening up the grad students working for them to income tax evasion charges and by extension potentially accessory to that crime.
All this really means is that universities just need to calculate the approximate tax liability that the grad students would be incurring from the tuition waivers and then raise the pay rates. I'm not sure if the income from the tuition would only show up when filing taxes so the grad students might need to make sure they're saving the extra income on their paychecks to make sure they can pay the tax bill.
Receiving a good/service as income is equivalent to paying for it from your savings. If you bought a tuition that costs $40,000 and you require $36,000 before taxes to survive for a year then you would need to be paid $76,000 plus additional income ($X) to cover the taxes. With the tuition waived you need to earn $36,000 plus $X making your effective income $76,000 + $X. You income and the tax liability you accrue would be identical in either case. Receiving goods/services as income is bad because the people who receive this sort of income are generally receiving it from someone who is not their employer, such as when winning a car. Your employer has no duty to increase the wages they pay you so that you can pay the income tax for the car you just won.
This whole article is just a drumbeat over a lot of nothing. It's trying to stir up discontent and generate sympathy for the colleges so that they don't have to raise the stipends they pay the grad students since the colleges only just have to pay a stipend increase equivalent to the taxes of the tuition plus the taxes of the stipend increase. That's a trivial problem.
I'm a libertarian that supports UBI. I support it precisely because it reduces welfare cost/burdens by dissolving those systems along with their structure to determine whether someone qualifies. The overall outcome should be a cheaper system, lower regulation, and better coverage. It provides income stability to individuals which is probably the single biggest thing we can do to combat crime in a general sense. It's something I consider prudent because I believe we're on the cusp of wave of automation that is general purpose rather than specific purpose. To me it's not a question about whether there's a solution that doesn't require the use of force. For me it's a question of which solution uses the least amount of force in the least painful way.
What's difficult for me to ascertain is how the "shopping" of groceries is being done which is a big part of whether $1/order is reasonable. Initially, it looks like the shoppers went into the stores and bought the items individually and it was also possible to place orders for multiple stores. Paying $1 for the shopper to go to Whole Foods and Kroger vs paying the shopper $1 to go to Whole Foods? There is definitely a scale difference there that should warrant differing costs.
The same assessment could be applies to the size of the order. $1 for an order that takes a full shopping cart or $1 for an order that can all be placed in a shopping basket. You can make a slightly better argument for $1/order if the shoppers are all doing curbside pickups and not going into the store but there's still the scope of the effort necessary to load/unload 1 bag of groceries versus 10.
While the pay rate may be $1/order just looking at the setup I can see how the effective pay rate would be $1/hr. I already get home 30 minutes later any day I go to the grocery store and that's when going to a grocery store that is maybe 2-4 minutes of additional travel. This just goes to continue to highlight the economic problem with the gig economy. The jobs have customers because the gig is cheap enough but the labor cost is low and the depreciation costs are non-existent. Every single one of them was founded with the goal that people would do the gig as they're doing something else making the extra cash a nice little incentive which is what made the low compensation seem reasonable. It's the individuals who are attempting to use a single gig as their primary income, which the system was never intended and likely cannot reasonably function with.
Your assessment hit it right on the head. Long haul transport companies aren't looking at them because of the mileage range and what depots they may operate. If Pilot Flying J or Love's were to install chargers from which semis could charge you would see long haul route providers take a look at Tesla. My guess is that they are going to watch he success of the Tesla semi and if it looks like Tesla might provide something which can incorporate a sleeper cab then they'll probably announce plans to provide such infrastructure and in turn you'll see other semi fleet operators look to electric semis.
If the electric semis are truly $0.25 cheaper to operate per mile than diesel then the transport companies will look at it. A 30 minute charge time is doubly beneficial because it will force their drivers to take breaks while at the truck stop.
Goods or services received can be taxable income. They are taxable income precisely because you are getting the good or service, which has a value, without paying for the good or service or paying the full price of it. That difference between the value and what you pay is income you received.
You may disagree that such items should be considered income but that's what the IRS defines as income and tuition waivers have been listed as an exclusion to that rule.
There will be one of two outcomes. Universities pay their grad students more for the work they do for them in order to offset the taxes from the tuition waiver, or the universities do not and they lose their source of cheap labor.
There's probably a high correlation of PTSD incidence in veterans with homelessness. In that case the United States does operate a funding program through the VA which can help provide for those veterans.
One is that if this is anything like the first Battlefront EA did then heroes are for one life in a match and they try to distribute them among players because honestly, it would be freaking stupid if there's 20 Lukes vs 20 Vaders. Not only are you grinding 40hrs to unlock a hero you are spending 40 hrs grinding to unlock a hero that you will get to use only some of the time.
The other thing to consider is the opportunity cost of the grind. If you jump in and grind 40hrs for Vader then that's 40hrs of saving credits where you're stuck with the most basic of equipment since all your upgrades come from loot chests which you can only acquire with credits or crystal and the latter requires paying real cash.
The next thing to consider is that the time would seem more reasonable if the launch heroes are the only heroes introduced. They will most likely introduce new heroes down the line and some may honestly be overpowered and overly desirable. This would be offset at least somewhat if you were stockpiling credits but that is greatly offset by how much they permit you to play heroes which goes back to the loot chests for equipment.
Equipment upgrades from Common->Uncommon->Rare->Epic and to upgrade your equipment and to get more equipment you need to acquire loot chests which means you're making the choice between playing as a hero or increasing the quality of your gameplay in the time spent between playing as the hero you grinded to unlock. This is the big opportunity cost because that 40hrs is probably miserable unless you're paying real cash.
The definition? Sales taxes are a tax upon the seller, paid by the seller, in the seller's jurisdiction. Done. Now all sales taxes get paid to the jurisdiction that the seller is in, at the seller's jurisdiction's rates.
Is the jurisdiction based on where the company is incorporated, where the sales front end is located, or the warehouse from which a product is distributed? Because I'm pretty sure what you proposed is that all companies that only sell goods online should make sure to operate out of a state like Oregon where no sales tax is collected.
Indiana already has a voter ID requirement for voting that has survived a Supreme Court challenge explicitly because it was determined by the Supreme Court that there is not an undue burden to acquire a state ID in Indiana.
The only poor experiences I've had with self-checkout involve other humans using the system and not knowing what the fuck they're doing.
These are the people that see every regular check out line has people in it and think "Oh hey, I don't have to wait to use the self-checkout!" then they proceed to spend more time at the self-checkout than if they had just waited in the shortest regular line.
His friend is not just a sample size of one. His friend is a sample size of one where exposure cross-section is drastically different than the general population.
That's pretty self explanatory. Overstock doesn't have an intention to exchange bitcoin for goods and services. Their intention is to hold onto it since it has been increasing in value on an upward trend and then cash it out before they thing a severe drop might happen or if they need revenue.
Let's consider that the basis of patent law is to allow an inventor to profit from what he created. In order to profit from your creation you need to secure funding to start producing the invention and well as bring it to market. An individual who creates an invention is going to have a harder time performing those tasks than a large corporation like GE. Without patents, GE could see the inventor's invention, copy it, bring it to market, and apply their current knowledge and efficiency to reduce the costs to below what the inventor could reasonable sell.
Are the following good ideas? I don't know but they sound good to me.
1. A functioning prototype of the invention. 2. A statement of revenue. Lower revenues mean longer patent durations and the dropoff for durations needs to be steep as income rises. 3. Companies can only license and purchase patents. They cannot sell them. 4. Individuals may license, purchase, and sell patents. 5. Sell a patent causes its duration is shortened based on the income of the purchasing entity. Example, if an individual can hold a patent for 10 years and the purchasing entity can only hold a patent for 2 years, then the patent's expiration will drop 8 years. This can cause patents to expire by being purchased.
The big problem you need to catch is companies spinning off subsidiaries to own a patent. This could probably manifest in one of two ways, either low to zero cost licensing for the parent company or the subsidiary not seeking legal action against the parent. To address that I think the following should be done.
1. Patent licensing cost is universal and must be done through the PTO. The licensing cost is publically available along with all the current entities licensing the patent. 2. The PTO collects all licensing fees and then distributes the funds to the owner of the patent or puts the funds into the general fund and provides the patent owner with a tax credit. 3. Any entity currently licensing a patent is permitted to bring forth suit against any entity producing a patented object without licensing.
The highest level of direct control or guidance over policies in the US is at the state level. The federal government usually only gets their way in education by utilizing grant money and setting terms and conditions that must be met to receive it. No Child Left Behind is a great example of this. It was a bill that provided funding to schools but in order to receive that funding you had to have standards based assessment of children at various ages. The standards weren't set by the federal government, something that would have been quickly challenged and likely defeated in court, and instead the standards were set by the individual states.
The results of the testing to these standards were used for determining federal funding. Schools that failed were required to set a 2 year improvement plan in order to retain funding. In the end the goal became to ensure that federal funding continued to flow and the way to do that is to make sure that students were taught material in order to pass the standards test. The Bill was eventually undone in 2015 but we're likely going to have a significant portion of a generation that received a very poor primary education because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget Sharknado 2018. I'm sure there's some witty pun they'll toss in the real title like Sharknado 6: Irma Gonna Eat You.
Experiments involving force. Bending. Compressing. Bending. Exploding. Bending. Also run it through a plasma cutter because why not?
Of course he doesn't know what he's talking about. He has no understand or grasp of how dog intelligence is consistently ranked. Dog intelligence can be identified and ranked on instinctual intelligence, adaptive intelligence, and working/obedience intelligence. The latter is how much time it takes to teach a dog a new command as well as how often the dog responds to the command the first time once taught it. Wolves aren't necessarily intelligent on that last ranking system. Human don't frequently value the instinctive or adaptive intelligences because they're not related to the tasks for which we've bred them however some breeds of dog are incredibly adaptively intelligence (Siberian huskies) and capable of solving problems on their own. Many of the most intelligent breeds by most obedience rankings aren't required to also have strong problem solving intelligence and that may be an undesirable trait when it comes to breeding a working dog.
Why are you fixated on bipedal robots? The use case for them is with repurposing a human oriented facility for use with robotics where it is cost prohibitive to refurbish the facility for use by robotics which there are very few facility out there where work processes involve move objects between point A and point B and the path between A and B involves ladders or stairs. The worst elevation change typically originates from ramps. A tracked or wheeled robot with a low center of gravity is more than capable performing the tasks of porting items from A to B. Bipedal robots are red herrings. Just looking at inventory handling and self-driving cars. There's no bipedal robots in place in either of these technologies but robots have either already replaced thousands of workers or are quickly approaching a way to replace thousands of workers.
The area of robotics which is more important is replicating the human ability to effectively handle variable inputs in a work process. This is why Amazon pickers pluck items from bins retrieved by robots.
Robot workers do not need to conform to human shapes and movements and spaces the robots work in would not need nearly as much space as a human.
Capone is similar but sufficiently different. With the Las Vegas pimp they had the evidence and witnesses to pursue the pimping charges or the tax evasion charges but elected for tax evasion because of the higher sentencing to keep him off the streets for longer. With Capone they lacked the evidence and witnesses to nail him for the organized crime charges but were able to eventually get the evidence to make the tax evasion charges stick to him to get him off the streets. The former is a little more egregious because the prosecution made a conscious decision to punish someone for being a pimp by using the tax laws rather than charging the guy with the crime that directly harmed other individuals. It wasn't even a situation where they failed to convince the jury of the pimp charges and then elected for the tax evasion charges which would at least have a more honorable pallet.
As long as money is being exchanged for money that has equal value it should not be taxed. If you pay $5 USD and receive the equivalent value of $5 USD in BTC then there's nothing to tax.
However, if you spend $5 USD and received $10 USD worth of BTC then you should be reporting the difference of $5 USD as income. Further, if you purchase $5 USD worth of BTC with $5 USD and the value of BTC relative to USD rises so your $5USD worth of BTC is now $500 USD worth of BTC then you would be required to file the difference ($495 USD) as income once you no longer possess the BTC unless the method by which you lost possession of the BTC is not due to theft, loss, or purchasing an item worth $500 USD or less. If you bought something worth $1000 USD with your BTC now worth $500 USD you would have to report $500 as income.
The IRS has a very keen interest on getting the transactional records of individuals who are doing things in BTC because by their definitions there's plenty of opportunity there for tax evasion.
Interstate commerce has frequently been abused since the 1942 ruling in Wickard v. Filburn which pretty much held all economic activity as interstate. Electing not to purchase something is interstate commerce that can be regulated because you are participating in the interstate market by lowering the demand in the market. If you want to talk about twisting the Constitution around, this is probably one of the most egregious rulings from the Supreme Court permitting twisting.
There's nothing wrong about the argument. That's exactly how the IRS classifies income. Anything you receive has a fair market value. That value minus what you pay for that thing is income you earned. The waiver to tuition has a value. If the fair market value of tuition to the university for the program in question is $40,000 and you pay $0 for it then that's $40,000 of income that you earned as a fringe benefit for working for the university in addition to the pay received from the university for the work performed. Up until this point that fringe benefit was an exception codified in law. At best, you're getting hung up on trying to make a distinction between physical and non-physical goods and services when there's no reason to do so.
Charging the student $0 would not likely be a "workaround" that the IRS would accept. The education is obviously not worth $0. If it were then student that do not perform work for the University should not have to pay the earlier $40,000 figure. Any university doing that would just be opening up a legal liability to themselves for failing to report the proper forms to the IRS as well as potentially opening up the grad students working for them to income tax evasion charges and by extension potentially accessory to that crime.
All this really means is that universities just need to calculate the approximate tax liability that the grad students would be incurring from the tuition waivers and then raise the pay rates. I'm not sure if the income from the tuition would only show up when filing taxes so the grad students might need to make sure they're saving the extra income on their paychecks to make sure they can pay the tax bill.
Receiving a good/service as income is equivalent to paying for it from your savings. If you bought a tuition that costs $40,000 and you require $36,000 before taxes to survive for a year then you would need to be paid $76,000 plus additional income ($X) to cover the taxes. With the tuition waived you need to earn $36,000 plus $X making your effective income $76,000 + $X. You income and the tax liability you accrue would be identical in either case. Receiving goods/services as income is bad because the people who receive this sort of income are generally receiving it from someone who is not their employer, such as when winning a car. Your employer has no duty to increase the wages they pay you so that you can pay the income tax for the car you just won.
This whole article is just a drumbeat over a lot of nothing. It's trying to stir up discontent and generate sympathy for the colleges so that they don't have to raise the stipends they pay the grad students since the colleges only just have to pay a stipend increase equivalent to the taxes of the tuition plus the taxes of the stipend increase. That's a trivial problem.
I'm a libertarian that supports UBI. I support it precisely because it reduces welfare cost/burdens by dissolving those systems along with their structure to determine whether someone qualifies. The overall outcome should be a cheaper system, lower regulation, and better coverage. It provides income stability to individuals which is probably the single biggest thing we can do to combat crime in a general sense. It's something I consider prudent because I believe we're on the cusp of wave of automation that is general purpose rather than specific purpose. To me it's not a question about whether there's a solution that doesn't require the use of force. For me it's a question of which solution uses the least amount of force in the least painful way.
What's difficult for me to ascertain is how the "shopping" of groceries is being done which is a big part of whether $1/order is reasonable. Initially, it looks like the shoppers went into the stores and bought the items individually and it was also possible to place orders for multiple stores. Paying $1 for the shopper to go to Whole Foods and Kroger vs paying the shopper $1 to go to Whole Foods? There is definitely a scale difference there that should warrant differing costs.
The same assessment could be applies to the size of the order. $1 for an order that takes a full shopping cart or $1 for an order that can all be placed in a shopping basket. You can make a slightly better argument for $1/order if the shoppers are all doing curbside pickups and not going into the store but there's still the scope of the effort necessary to load/unload 1 bag of groceries versus 10.
While the pay rate may be $1/order just looking at the setup I can see how the effective pay rate would be $1/hr. I already get home 30 minutes later any day I go to the grocery store and that's when going to a grocery store that is maybe 2-4 minutes of additional travel. This just goes to continue to highlight the economic problem with the gig economy. The jobs have customers because the gig is cheap enough but the labor cost is low and the depreciation costs are non-existent. Every single one of them was founded with the goal that people would do the gig as they're doing something else making the extra cash a nice little incentive which is what made the low compensation seem reasonable. It's the individuals who are attempting to use a single gig as their primary income, which the system was never intended and likely cannot reasonably function with.
Your assessment hit it right on the head. Long haul transport companies aren't looking at them because of the mileage range and what depots they may operate. If Pilot Flying J or Love's were to install chargers from which semis could charge you would see long haul route providers take a look at Tesla. My guess is that they are going to watch he success of the Tesla semi and if it looks like Tesla might provide something which can incorporate a sleeper cab then they'll probably announce plans to provide such infrastructure and in turn you'll see other semi fleet operators look to electric semis.
If the electric semis are truly $0.25 cheaper to operate per mile than diesel then the transport companies will look at it. A 30 minute charge time is doubly beneficial because it will force their drivers to take breaks while at the truck stop.
Goods or services received can be taxable income. They are taxable income precisely because you are getting the good or service, which has a value, without paying for the good or service or paying the full price of it. That difference between the value and what you pay is income you received.
You may disagree that such items should be considered income but that's what the IRS defines as income and tuition waivers have been listed as an exclusion to that rule.
There will be one of two outcomes. Universities pay their grad students more for the work they do for them in order to offset the taxes from the tuition waiver, or the universities do not and they lose their source of cheap labor.
It can't possibly be worse. Mario wouldn't even jump in that movie.
There's probably a high correlation of PTSD incidence in veterans with homelessness. In that case the United States does operate a funding program through the VA which can help provide for those veterans.
https://www.va.gov/homeless/gp...
I think there's a couple of factors at play.
One is that if this is anything like the first Battlefront EA did then heroes are for one life in a match and they try to distribute them among players because honestly, it would be freaking stupid if there's 20 Lukes vs 20 Vaders. Not only are you grinding 40hrs to unlock a hero you are spending 40 hrs grinding to unlock a hero that you will get to use only some of the time.
The other thing to consider is the opportunity cost of the grind. If you jump in and grind 40hrs for Vader then that's 40hrs of saving credits where you're stuck with the most basic of equipment since all your upgrades come from loot chests which you can only acquire with credits or crystal and the latter requires paying real cash.
The next thing to consider is that the time would seem more reasonable if the launch heroes are the only heroes introduced. They will most likely introduce new heroes down the line and some may honestly be overpowered and overly desirable. This would be offset at least somewhat if you were stockpiling credits but that is greatly offset by how much they permit you to play heroes which goes back to the loot chests for equipment.
Equipment upgrades from Common->Uncommon->Rare->Epic and to upgrade your equipment and to get more equipment you need to acquire loot chests which means you're making the choice between playing as a hero or increasing the quality of your gameplay in the time spent between playing as the hero you grinded to unlock. This is the big opportunity cost because that 40hrs is probably miserable unless you're paying real cash.
That the lot of them are a bunch of mother fuckers.
The definition? Sales taxes are a tax upon the seller, paid by the seller, in the seller's jurisdiction. Done. Now all sales taxes get paid to the jurisdiction that the seller is in, at the seller's jurisdiction's rates.
Is the jurisdiction based on where the company is incorporated, where the sales front end is located, or the warehouse from which a product is distributed? Because I'm pretty sure what you proposed is that all companies that only sell goods online should make sure to operate out of a state like Oregon where no sales tax is collected.
And Russian roulette with a bunch of red ties.... or bandanas.
Indiana already has a voter ID requirement for voting that has survived a Supreme Court challenge explicitly because it was determined by the Supreme Court that there is not an undue burden to acquire a state ID in Indiana.
The only poor experiences I've had with self-checkout involve other humans using the system and not knowing what the fuck they're doing.
These are the people that see every regular check out line has people in it and think "Oh hey, I don't have to wait to use the self-checkout!" then they proceed to spend more time at the self-checkout than if they had just waited in the shortest regular line.
His friend is not just a sample size of one. His friend is a sample size of one where exposure cross-section is drastically different than the general population.
That's pretty self explanatory. Overstock doesn't have an intention to exchange bitcoin for goods and services. Their intention is to hold onto it since it has been increasing in value on an upward trend and then cash it out before they thing a severe drop might happen or if they need revenue.
Let's consider that the basis of patent law is to allow an inventor to profit from what he created. In order to profit from your creation you need to secure funding to start producing the invention and well as bring it to market. An individual who creates an invention is going to have a harder time performing those tasks than a large corporation like GE. Without patents, GE could see the inventor's invention, copy it, bring it to market, and apply their current knowledge and efficiency to reduce the costs to below what the inventor could reasonable sell.
Are the following good ideas? I don't know but they sound good to me.
1. A functioning prototype of the invention.
2. A statement of revenue. Lower revenues mean longer patent durations and the dropoff for durations needs to be steep as income rises.
3. Companies can only license and purchase patents. They cannot sell them.
4. Individuals may license, purchase, and sell patents.
5. Sell a patent causes its duration is shortened based on the income of the purchasing entity. Example, if an individual can hold a patent for 10 years and the purchasing entity can only hold a patent for 2 years, then the patent's expiration will drop 8 years. This can cause patents to expire by being purchased.
The big problem you need to catch is companies spinning off subsidiaries to own a patent. This could probably manifest in one of two ways, either low to zero cost licensing for the parent company or the subsidiary not seeking legal action against the parent. To address that I think the following should be done.
1. Patent licensing cost is universal and must be done through the PTO. The licensing cost is publically available along with all the current entities licensing the patent.
2. The PTO collects all licensing fees and then distributes the funds to the owner of the patent or puts the funds into the general fund and provides the patent owner with a tax credit.
3. Any entity currently licensing a patent is permitted to bring forth suit against any entity producing a patented object without licensing.
The highest level of direct control or guidance over policies in the US is at the state level. The federal government usually only gets their way in education by utilizing grant money and setting terms and conditions that must be met to receive it. No Child Left Behind is a great example of this. It was a bill that provided funding to schools but in order to receive that funding you had to have standards based assessment of children at various ages. The standards weren't set by the federal government, something that would have been quickly challenged and likely defeated in court, and instead the standards were set by the individual states.
The results of the testing to these standards were used for determining federal funding. Schools that failed were required to set a 2 year improvement plan in order to retain funding. In the end the goal became to ensure that federal funding continued to flow and the way to do that is to make sure that students were taught material in order to pass the standards test. The Bill was eventually undone in 2015 but we're likely going to have a significant portion of a generation that received a very poor primary education because of it.
His hibachi dealer told him.