You can probably guess, I'm not trying to come up with a system that has a chance of being adopted, I'm trying to come up with the best solution I can for the overall problem.
To respond, I don't think free software should have to pay for patents, if the cost is 0, and I don't see that as a problem. Software has only recently become patentable, and I think it's a crock.
Secondly, your system of compulsory licensing - I had thought about that, but when push comes to shove, and you have to enforce that, what price to you make the patent holder "accept" for their patent? Who determines the value? The government?
I'd rather that price be set in a more natural, market oriented way. Which is why I came up with this. Besides, the tax way, the licensing is taken care of for everyone - not just those who sign a licensing agreement.
I have clearly said many times that, in my opinion, the patent holder would set the tax rate, so you can end the arguments saying that my system has the government or some academic set the "value" of a patent.
If the inventors determine their percentages, it might as well be today's system Uh, no. It'd be quite different. Or are you telling me your railing against my idea so strongly, but really, it's no different from the current system which you apparently view as perfect?
Other funding models - public funds, private fund-raising organizations for example. They exist today, but are a pretty small percentage of the spending.
Companies license their technology ALL the time I suppose this goes hand in hand with your assertion about the efficiency of the current system. And abuses of the system don't happen. Patent lawsuits really aren't happening.
The tax system wouldn't bring enough reward for the risk. Here's your only argument of substance, and I'll grant it's a possibility. However, I think it's more likely that the tax system could bring in even more money for patent holders. Since everyone could make the patented products, the market would drive down the base price. The tax then makes up the "research" cost of the product. If the tax is set right, it is the same effect as the monopoly setting the price right for maximum profits. However, the advantage for the tax system is that patented technology is completely unrestricted in use by others (no need for licensing approval, no way for patent holder to play favorites), and the value of patents varies tremendously - a fact that is inadequately accounted for by the current system, but which is handled pretty elegantly by the tax idea.
BTW, if preview wasn't buggy, maybe I'd actually use it. As it is, it strips out all HTML from my post.
Your plan, like many, sounds fine in theory. The inventors get "rewarded" for their efforts. Whoopie. However, you are ignoring the very important relationship of risk and return.
Currently, the reward a company gets is market driven - via a government protected monopoly. A patent tax is no less market driven - how much "reward" you get is based on the demand for the product and the tax level assigned to the patent. The more people want the product, the more revenue the tax will generate. So, I can't agree with your assessment that the tax plan here. You assert the monopolies is a very efficient way to provide a high degree of return. I'm not interested in providing high degrees - I'm interested in providing a return based on the market value of the patent.
...but to propose that the government sets what is "fair" begs for the creation of a far less efficient system.
Your assuming the current system doesn't get "set" by the gov.? How do you control the cost a monopoly charges for a needed product? Say, a product that saves people's lives? What's to stop them from charging an infinite price? Insurance companies and government. A tax system that I'm suggesting could give the patent holders the choice of tax rate they want applied to their patent. The government might simply set some limits on that tax rate.
In the vast majority of cases, competitors come out with equivelent products without having to go through the patent So, the patent is effectively worthless. No different in my system. Probably the patent holder would choose to "drop" their patent, or the tax rate.
If reward (read: tax x usage) are too low at the outset, this will lower the incentive for the inventor I suggest the inventor set the tax rate, so it's as high or low as they choose/need.
Second, if it[the tax] is too low, it may discourage the competing companies from trying to come up with unique alternative solutions of their own. Instead, they just "license" it as your "reasonable" fee. Hmmm, interesting fear. I'm not sure I'd be worried about this. It would thus encourage the sharing of technology and knowledge, and would still provide substantial benefit to innovation.
They seem to think that some panel of "experts", is a better decider of "value" than the market. Yet, if you talk to most any proven entreprenuer/inventor, they scoff at the idea of academics deciding value Yes! Let the market decide - not "experts", not academics, and not a monopoly!
Lastly, one need look no further than the massive amounts spent by large and small companies alike to conclude that the _actual_ IP system works decently One should also keep in mind the number of technologies left to languish under patent protection, and the number of technologies left to languish because there's no way to recoup the research costs. There are illnesses they know how to cure, but don't because it would cost a lot, and only 500 people a year die from them, so, why bother? The system we have is not efficient, and there's nothing wrong with developing new ways of dealing with the problem. My ideal is that there'd be multiple funding models in place, but the current patent system really discourages people from using other models.
Your plan, like many, sounds fine in theory. The inventors get "rewarded" for their efforts. Whoopie. However, you are ignoring the very important relationship of risk and return.
Currently, the reward a company gets is market driven - via a government protected monopoly. A patent tax is no less market driven - how much "reward" you get is based on the demand for the product and the tax level assigned to the patent. The more people want the product, the more revenue the tax will generate. So, I can't agree with your assessment that the tax plan here. You assert the monopolies is a very efficient way to provide a high degree of return. I'm not interested in providing high degrees - I'm interested in providing a return based on the market value of the patent.
...but to propose that the government sets what is "fair" begs for the creation of a far less efficient system.
Your assuming the current system doesn't get "set" by the gov.? How do you control the cost a monopoly charges for a needed product? Say, a product that saves people's lives? What's to stop them from charging an infinite price? Insurance companies and government. A tax system that I'm suggesting could give the patent holders the choice of tax rate they want applied to their patent. The government might simply set some limits on that tax rate.
In the vast majority of cases, competitors come out with equivelent products without having to go through the patent So, the patent is effectively worthless. No different in my system. Probably the patent holder would choose to "drop" their patent, or the tax rate.
If reward (read: tax x usage) are too low at the outset, this will lower the incentive for the inventor I suggest the inventor set the tax rate, so it's as high or low as they choose/need.
Second, if it[the tax] is too low, it may discourage the competing companies from trying to come up with unique alternative solutions of their own. Instead, they just "license" it as your "reasonable" fee. Hmmm, interesting fear. I'm not sure I'd be worried about this. It would thus encourage the sharing of technology and knowledge, and would still provide substantial benefit to innovation.
They seem to think that some panel of "experts", is a better decider of "value" than the market. Yet, if you talk to most any proven entreprenuer/inventor, they scoff at the idea of academics deciding value Yes! Let the market decide - not "experts", not academics, and not a monopoly!
. Lastly, one need look no further than the massive amounts spent by large and small companies alike to conclude that the _actual_ IP system works decently One should also keep in mind the number of technologies left to languish under patent protection, and the number of technologies left to languish because there's no way to recoup the research costs. There are illnesses they know how to cure, but don't because it would cost a lot, and only 500 people a year die from them, so, why bother? The system we have is not efficient, and there's nothing wrong with developing new ways of dealing with the problem. My ideal is that there'd be multiple funding models in place, but the current patent system really discourages people from using other models.
Could you expand on why you think it would be a big mess? I realize my plan allows for all different percentages to be applied for tax, and a product could come under multiple patent taxes. But, I think that with computer technology today, this is very doable. It requires that we choose to do it only (which I know very well will not happen).
Anyway, if the end product is free, then a percentage of that is 0, right? So, I don't understand your example with Windows. If a free product uses a windows patent, you don't pay a tax based on the cost of windows, you pay a tax based on the cost of the product, which was free. This would essentially make software patents useless, which is good.
How is sales tax theft? It's cost, that you see up front and agree to pay. Or not. It's up to you. It's a way of funding research. It would be nice if research were cheap and risk-free, as you seem to think it is, but it's not. It involves hard work, and putting yourself at risk to lose a lot. It requires reward as an incentive. If we had a gift economy, maybe your way would work, but we don't. I see my plan as moving in that direction, though, since it removes restrictions on what others can do with your invention.
It's similar to compulsory licensing, but superior, I think. How do you force licensing? Are you going to have a government tell the company how much to license for when the two companies involved can't agree? Also, you have to make all those license agreements in the first place - a lot of unnecessary effort and bureaucracy, in my opinion. Under my system, the patent application is also the license agreement. The tax settles the amount - it's always royalty based (in effect), and the actual tax percentage can be determined by the patent holder, with some simple limitations set by the government. It just seems much simpler, to me.
Well, this is just dumb. The tax would only affect those who use the patented 1-click. So, if Amazon forced everyone to use 1-click, people would move to their competitors, and avoid the tax. Or, if Amazon offered other methods in addition to 1-click, people would use those methods, and avoid the tax. The patent would be worthless.
And, by the way, you can't "pass on" the cost of a sales tax! Think about it.
The license fee model is at the sole discretion of the patent holder. They don't have to license their technology. That stifles other companies who may want to use it. My system places no restrictions on anyone. The only affect a patent has is that the end product is subject to the tax.
Regarding bureaucracies - millions of lawyers and courts doesn't at all strike me as being efficient. A national patent sales tax could easily be implemented relatively efficiently, especially given our level of technology these days.
I have said this before on Slashdot, but I'll say it again. The patent system is a funding model - a way of funnelling money for the purpose of scientific research.
There are many possible ways of funding research - public money, charity-type organizations, etc. However, the patent system overwhelms other funding models we might try because it creates the potential for such astronomical returns on investment. Other models can't compete.
Here is my alternative: set up a patent tax. It works just like a national sales tax. Any product that makes use of a patent has the patent tax applied to it. the proceeds from the patent tax go to the holder of the patent. In addition, NO ONE is restricted in any way from using patent technology. The patent tax could vary with each patent - that's detail that could be worked out in interesting ways.
I'll give an example of how this works - take the Amazon 1-click patent. If Amazon patents this under this patent tax, then any user who choses to use 1-click must pay the patent tax, whereas if they choose to order normally, they wouldn't. You can see how easily the market would determine the value of this patent - nobody would do it. The only thing Amazon has succeeded in doing by patenting 1-click is ensuring that no one will use 1-click. So, they probably would not have made such a ridiculous patent under this system.
Another example: Someone invents a pill that cures breast cancer. They patent the pill. Now, any company can manufacture the pill and sell it, so it's likely to be cheap, right off the bat, but there's the patent tax, of, say 100%. So, the patent holder makes a lot of money - even though others are allowed to sell their product. It probably makes economic sense for the patent holder NOT to make their own product, as they would make as much money off of others, without having to be a manufacturer.
In any case, I think we could get rid of patents, and we'd, as a society, just have to come up with different funding models. I think we could do that.
People often call our current level of technology, and our current time period, the "Information Age". I think they're a little premature. The information age will come about when information is the only thing worth money (or whatever is used for trade). Right now, information is quickly gaining on the material world in terms of worth, but it still lags. Material goods generally require very expensive production means and fabrication plants that require that thousands and millions of units be sold in order for you, the consumer, to be able to buy it relatively cheaply.
When the information age comes, this will change because it will allow anything to be created as long as you have 1)Some matter (like dirt) 2)Some energy and 3)The information on how to make it. Since 1) and 2) will be essentially free, only 3) has any real value. And it's pure labor - no "resources" are involved.*
How will this happen? Nanotechnology. Once you can arrange matter, on the molecular scale, you can create anything you want from the ground up. And making one is no more expensive than making 1,000,000, so therefore, people will have the ability to make things as they need them.
Once that happens, we will truly be in the Information Age, and frankly, I have no idea what will happen. It could be Utopia. More likely, it will mean the death of the individual, and individual rights, because any individual with this power could easily, and accidentally, destroy the entire world. Bill Joy wasn't overblown, he just concentrated on the wrong technologies - AI and Bio-science aren't nearly as scary as self-replicating nanites with absolutely no natural, or unnatural, "predators". So, to prevent such accidents, individuals will have to give up all privacy to the public.
*I say dirt and energy are free because, while I can imagine a dirt-utility bill, I just don't find it likely, and energy would almost certainly come from solar power from tiny machines that live in the upper atmosphere and deliver energy into our network constantly. Or some such solution.
I hunt -- I like deer meet. I should probably stop here, but really feel like ridiculing you some more...
...but I'm not interested in a fair fight. I want to feed my family. There are many ways to do that. You chose shooting deer. Some find that choice to be saying something about you.
Perhaps you would do well to live in the wilderness for a year or so before condemning those of us who live that life. Being faced with a choice between feeding your family, and killing a deer, the choice is easy, if you are human. Neither you nor I face that choice, thankfully. Many people live beyond such a reality, and some choose to take advantage of it by discontinuing the needless killing of animals when possible. Certainly, we don't choose to go out and revel in it.
I think you need to look much deeper for the roots of what you apparently consider sadistic behaviour Ok, inability to empathize with other beings? Inability to relate their pain with your pain? Inability to see the desperate struggle of that deer to live for what it is - a desire to live that is as strong as your own?
You can find yourself to be as improbably as you like - I find you to be all too typical.
AI seems to have two aspects that need solving: Hardware power, and understanding of what intelligence is. On a sliding scale of 1-10, 10 being "solved and adequate", where are we with respect to each of these two problems?
How hampered is AI research by people's "common sense" expectations of what "intelligence" is? For example, Searle's Chinese Room argument captures many people's imagination, and leaves them thinking that nothing in the universe except their brain could possibly have consciousness. Arguments about sentience seem very irrelevant to me, and often lead to this type of attitude. Could AI be making more progress by putting some of these questions aside for the time being?
If the only thing a robot car had to deal with was other robot cars and the road, I would agree. But robot cars will still have to deal with tire blowouts, deer, fallen trees, ice patches, snow plows, salt on the camera lens, low-visibility conditions, flooding, legacy systems (unauthorized human drivers breaking the law), etc. After taking all these things into account, robot cars will probably be able to drive faster and closer together than good human drivers, but not quite as extreme as you indicate.
So, in the end, producing Intellectual Property isn't going to make any money. All jobs will be service jobs
I have to disagree here. I think at some point in the future, because of technological progress, IP will be the only thing that makes money (well, service too). Real property (other than real estate) will mostly become worthless. Why? Because, we will someday actually enter the information age (no, we're not there yet). The information age will begin when Star Trek-like replicators are invented, using nano-tech. Once that happens, the only thing worth money, will be design blueprints for the creation of objects. Want a car? Download the design plan you want, feed it into the replicator, and presto! Car made while you wait. Meanwhile, a small fee goes back to the creator of the design, and perhaps a small fee for the dirt-utility that supplies the basic matter from which your car was made.
IP, hopefully in the form of copywrite protection, rather than patent-type protection, will rule as long as we are in a capitalist economy. It will become the only property worth anything, particularly on Wall Street.
All hail corporate power! All hail corporate efficiency (particularly big corps)! All hail the death of the evil, evil, small entrepreneur with his evil, evil, new ideas!
:-)
I guess I just don't share your enthusiasm over so-called "corporate efficiency".
Obviously the products that farmers market are in demand. Reduce the supply and you're very right that prices for those products will skyrocket! Lots of this money will go back to the remaining farmers. Now if a whole area is full of rich farmers, it would be very profitable to sell internet service to them at a higher rate, so ISP's would move into the area. In the meantime, other potential farmers would see all the dough that can be made in the industry, so they move to the country and produce. Their production lowers the price of food products. Now the price of foodstuff is back to normal, and ISP's exist in the country. The market at work.
The poor farmers who moved away because they couldn't afford the utilities would get bought our by large corporations with the ability to pay the utility costs and the clout to raise prices of basic food stuffs. Then, when the utility companies move in, and the food industry is very profitable and entrepreneurs want back into the market, they can't, cause the big mega-corps will kill them before they even get started. The market at work.
It's all crap. The only argument against AI is Searle's Chinese Room argument, and it is based entirely on the prejudice of humans who regard themselves as the sole owners of "consciousness". The moment we ask if something else has consciousness or a "soul", we start asking questions like "prove it", and "show me where". WTF???!!?? WE ARE NOTHING BUT PHYSICAL MATTER folks. If you believe otherwise, that is your BELIEF, nothing else. If you can prove to me you are conscious, then maybe we can start talking. Until then, every argument you put forward against the possibility of AI is nothing but emotional prejudice. Maybe someday, we'll need another civil rights movement for machines intelligences because of people who think like this.
You say the patent tax would go to the owner of the patent. That would be Amazon. That would be pointless.
No, not pointless - that's the point.
the point of patents is to encourage innovation, not discourage it
Exactly. Thus, receiving the patent tax revenue is the incentive both to a)innovate and b)disclose your invention and patent it.
I find it odd that the "Hogwash" poster complained that my patent tax idea was no different from what we currently have (hello? There's no patent tax - there are only patent monopolies), and now you are responding saying my idea is in effect the same as having NO patents. I guess it would be too much to ask that people would actually think about what they read.
Hogwash? Did you read what I wrote? It is not what we have currently, it is very different.
Currently, companies own the rights to what they have patented. Under what I described, they own no such rights. They simply get rewarded if the technology in their patent ever gets used. However, any individual or company is free to develop products based on the patent without having to arrange a license agreement with the patent holder. Thus, all ideas are owned by the public, and market forces would determine the cost and value of any resulting products.
The patent tax would be applied like a sales tax on any products that use a patent. The money from this tax goes to the patent holder. That is the sole benefit of owning the patent.
Under today's system, companies are not forced to license their patent to others, and are free to hold onto the monopoly themselves, or worse, can simply prevent any product being developed with the patent. And companies with the monopoly can essentially charge whatever price they want for their product (unless the gov. sets price controls - ugh).
I've been considering the idea of instituting a patent tax. Registering a patent under this idea doesn't prevent anyone from using that technology. However, every product sold that falls under a patent will have an additional "patent tax", the proceeds of which go directly to the patent holder.
This would allow the market forces to determine the value of the product, as well as the value of the patent.
Also, the tax percentage could vary for different patents. It could be determined, within reason, by the patent holder. Consider: If Amazon patented 1-click under this system, no one would use it, because using the 1-click would mean their book would cost more. Thus we instantly see that the 1-click ordering is really of little value to the consumer (who votes most honestly and realistically with his pocketbook), and Amazon would probably have chosen not to patent such a thing under a patent tax system.
Slashdot Mirror
You can probably guess, I'm not trying to come up with a system that has a chance of being adopted, I'm trying to come up with the best solution I can for the overall problem.
To respond, I don't think free software should have to pay for patents, if the cost is 0, and I don't see that as a problem. Software has only recently become patentable, and I think it's a crock.
Secondly, your system of compulsory licensing - I had thought about that, but when push comes to shove, and you have to enforce that, what price to you make the patent holder "accept" for their patent? Who determines the value? The government?
I'd rather that price be set in a more natural, market oriented way. Which is why I came up with this. Besides, the tax way, the licensing is taken care of for everyone - not just those who sign a licensing agreement.
Uh, no. It'd be quite different. Or are you telling me your railing against my idea so strongly, but really, it's no different from the current system which you apparently view as perfect?
I suppose this goes hand in hand with your assertion about the efficiency of the current system. And abuses of the system don't happen. Patent lawsuits really aren't happening.
Just for you....
...but to propose that the government sets what is "fair" begs for the creation of a far less efficient system.
BTW, if preview wasn't buggy, maybe I'd actually use it. As it is, it strips out all HTML from my post.
Your plan, like many, sounds fine in theory. The inventors get "rewarded" for their efforts. Whoopie. However, you are ignoring the very important relationship of risk and return.
Currently, the reward a company gets is market driven - via a government protected monopoly. A patent tax is no less market driven - how much "reward" you get is based on the demand for the product and the tax level assigned to the patent. The more people want the product, the more revenue the tax will generate. So, I can't agree with your assessment that the tax plan here. You assert the monopolies is a very efficient way to provide a high degree of return. I'm not interested in providing high degrees - I'm interested in providing a return based on the market value of the patent.
Your assuming the current system doesn't get "set" by the gov.? How do you control the cost a monopoly charges for a needed product? Say, a product that saves people's lives? What's to stop them from charging an infinite price? Insurance companies and government. A tax system that I'm suggesting could give the patent holders the choice of tax rate they want applied to their patent. The government might simply set some limits on that tax rate.
In the vast majority of cases, competitors come out with equivelent products without having to go through the patent
So, the patent is effectively worthless. No different in my system. Probably the patent holder would choose to "drop" their patent, or the tax rate.
If reward (read: tax x usage) are too low at the outset, this will lower the incentive for the inventor
I suggest the inventor set the tax rate, so it's as high or low as they choose/need.
Second, if it[the tax] is too low, it may discourage the competing companies from trying to come up with unique alternative solutions of their own. Instead, they just "license" it as your "reasonable" fee.
Hmmm, interesting fear. I'm not sure I'd be worried about this. It would thus encourage the sharing of technology and knowledge, and would still provide substantial benefit to innovation.
They seem to think that some panel of "experts", is a better decider of "value" than the market. Yet, if you talk to most any proven entreprenuer/inventor, they scoff at the idea of academics deciding value
Yes! Let the market decide - not "experts", not academics, and not a monopoly!
Lastly, one need look no further than the massive amounts spent by large and small companies alike to conclude that the _actual_ IP system works decently
One should also keep in mind the number of technologies left to languish under patent protection, and the number of technologies left to languish because there's no way to recoup the research costs. There are illnesses they know how to cure, but don't because it would cost a lot, and only 500 people a year die from them, so, why bother? The system we have is not efficient, and there's nothing wrong with developing new ways of dealing with the problem. My ideal is that there'd be multiple funding models in place, but the current patent system really discourages people from using other models.
Your plan, like many, sounds fine in theory. The inventors get "rewarded" for their efforts. Whoopie. However, you are ignoring the very important relationship of risk and return.
Currently, the reward a company gets is market driven - via a government protected monopoly. A patent tax is no less market driven - how much "reward" you get is based on the demand for the product and the tax level assigned to the patent. The more people want the product, the more revenue the tax will generate. So, I can't agree with your assessment that the tax plan here. You assert the monopolies is a very efficient way to provide a high degree of return. I'm not interested in providing high degrees - I'm interested in providing a return based on the market value of the patent.
Your assuming the current system doesn't get "set" by the gov.? How do you control the cost a monopoly charges for a needed product? Say, a product that saves people's lives? What's to stop them from charging an infinite price? Insurance companies and government. A tax system that I'm suggesting could give the patent holders the choice of tax rate they want applied to their patent. The government might simply set some limits on that tax rate.
In the vast majority of cases, competitors come out with equivelent products without having to go through the patent
So, the patent is effectively worthless. No different in my system. Probably the patent holder would choose to "drop" their patent, or the tax rate.
If reward (read: tax x usage) are too low at the outset, this will lower the incentive for the inventor
I suggest the inventor set the tax rate, so it's as high or low as they choose/need.
Second, if it[the tax] is too low, it may discourage the competing companies from trying to come up with unique alternative solutions of their own. Instead, they just "license" it as your "reasonable" fee.
Hmmm, interesting fear. I'm not sure I'd be worried about this. It would thus encourage the sharing of technology and knowledge, and would still provide substantial benefit to innovation.
They seem to think that some panel of "experts", is a better decider of "value" than the market. Yet, if you talk to most any proven entreprenuer/inventor, they scoff at the idea of academics deciding value
Yes! Let the market decide - not "experts", not academics, and not a monopoly!
. Lastly, one need look no further than the massive amounts spent by large and small companies alike to conclude that the _actual_ IP system works decently
One should also keep in mind the number of technologies left to languish under patent protection, and the number of technologies left to languish because there's no way to recoup the research costs. There are illnesses they know how to cure, but don't because it would cost a lot, and only 500 people a year die from them, so, why bother? The system we have is not efficient, and there's nothing wrong with developing new ways of dealing with the problem. My ideal is that there'd be multiple funding models in place, but the current patent system really discourages people from using other models.
Could you expand on why you think it would be a big mess? I realize my plan allows for all different percentages to be applied for tax, and a product could come under multiple patent taxes. But, I think that with computer technology today, this is very doable. It requires that we choose to do it only (which I know very well will not happen).
Anyway, if the end product is free, then a percentage of that is 0, right? So, I don't understand your example with Windows. If a free product uses a windows patent, you don't pay a tax based on the cost of windows, you pay a tax based on the cost of the product, which was free. This would essentially make software patents useless, which is good.
How is sales tax theft? It's cost, that you see up front and agree to pay. Or not. It's up to you. It's a way of funding research. It would be nice if research were cheap and risk-free, as you seem to think it is, but it's not. It involves hard work, and putting yourself at risk to lose a lot. It requires reward as an incentive. If we had a gift economy, maybe your way would work, but we don't. I see my plan as moving in that direction, though, since it removes restrictions on what others can do with your invention.
It's similar to compulsory licensing, but superior, I think. How do you force licensing? Are you going to have a government tell the company how much to license for when the two companies involved can't agree? Also, you have to make all those license agreements in the first place - a lot of unnecessary effort and bureaucracy, in my opinion. Under my system, the patent application is also the license agreement. The tax settles the amount - it's always royalty based (in effect), and the actual tax percentage can be determined by the patent holder, with some simple limitations set by the government. It just seems much simpler, to me.
Well, this is just dumb. The tax would only affect those who use the patented 1-click. So, if Amazon forced everyone to use 1-click, people would move to their competitors, and avoid the tax. Or, if Amazon offered other methods in addition to 1-click, people would use those methods, and avoid the tax. The patent would be worthless.
And, by the way, you can't "pass on" the cost of a sales tax! Think about it.
The license fee model is at the sole discretion of the patent holder. They don't have to license their technology. That stifles other companies who may want to use it. My system places no restrictions on anyone. The only affect a patent has is that the end product is subject to the tax.
Regarding bureaucracies - millions of lawyers and courts doesn't at all strike me as being efficient. A national patent sales tax could easily be implemented relatively efficiently, especially given our level of technology these days.
I have said this before on Slashdot, but I'll say it again. The patent system is a funding model - a way of funnelling money for the purpose of scientific research.
There are many possible ways of funding research - public money, charity-type organizations, etc. However, the patent system overwhelms other funding models we might try because it creates the potential for such astronomical returns on investment. Other models can't compete.
Here is my alternative: set up a patent tax. It works just like a national sales tax. Any product that makes use of a patent has the patent tax applied to it. the proceeds from the patent tax go to the holder of the patent. In addition, NO ONE is restricted in any way from using patent technology. The patent tax could vary with each patent - that's detail that could be worked out in interesting ways.
I'll give an example of how this works - take the Amazon 1-click patent. If Amazon patents this under this patent tax, then any user who choses to use 1-click must pay the patent tax, whereas if they choose to order normally, they wouldn't. You can see how easily the market would determine the value of this patent - nobody would do it. The only thing Amazon has succeeded in doing by patenting 1-click is ensuring that no one will use 1-click. So, they probably would not have made such a ridiculous patent under this system.
Another example: Someone invents a pill that cures breast cancer. They patent the pill. Now, any company can manufacture the pill and sell it, so it's likely to be cheap, right off the bat, but there's the patent tax, of, say 100%. So, the patent holder makes a lot of money - even though others are allowed to sell their product. It probably makes economic sense for the patent holder NOT to make their own product, as they would make as much money off of others, without having to be a manufacturer.
In any case, I think we could get rid of patents, and we'd, as a society, just have to come up with different funding models. I think we could do that.
People often call our current level of technology, and our current time period, the "Information Age". I think they're a little premature. The information age will come about when information is the only thing worth money (or whatever is used for trade). Right now, information is quickly gaining on the material world in terms of worth, but it still lags. Material goods generally require very expensive production means and fabrication plants that require that thousands and millions of units be sold in order for you, the consumer, to be able to buy it relatively cheaply.
When the information age comes, this will change because it will allow anything to be created as long as you have 1)Some matter (like dirt) 2)Some energy and 3)The information on how to make it. Since 1) and 2) will be essentially free, only 3) has any real value. And it's pure labor - no "resources" are involved.*
How will this happen? Nanotechnology. Once you can arrange matter, on the molecular scale, you can create anything you want from the ground up. And making one is no more expensive than making 1,000,000, so therefore, people will have the ability to make things as they need them.
Once that happens, we will truly be in the Information Age, and frankly, I have no idea what will happen. It could be Utopia. More likely, it will mean the death of the individual, and individual rights, because any individual with this power could easily, and accidentally, destroy the entire world. Bill Joy wasn't overblown, he just concentrated on the wrong technologies - AI and Bio-science aren't nearly as scary as self-replicating nanites with absolutely no natural, or unnatural, "predators". So, to prevent such accidents, individuals will have to give up all privacy to the public.
*I say dirt and energy are free because, while I can imagine a dirt-utility bill, I just don't find it likely, and energy would almost certainly come from solar power from tiny machines that live in the upper atmosphere and deliver energy into our network constantly. Or some such solution.
I hunt -- I like deer meet.
...but I'm not interested in a fair fight. I want to feed my family.
I should probably stop here, but really feel like ridiculing you some more...
There are many ways to do that. You chose shooting deer. Some find that choice to be saying something about you.
Perhaps you would do well to live in the wilderness for a year or so before condemning those of us who live that life. Being faced with a choice between feeding your family, and killing a deer, the choice is easy, if you are human.
Neither you nor I face that choice, thankfully. Many people live beyond such a reality, and some choose to take advantage of it by discontinuing the needless killing of animals when possible. Certainly, we don't choose to go out and revel in it.
I think you need to look much deeper for the roots of what you apparently consider sadistic behaviour
Ok, inability to empathize with other beings? Inability to relate their pain with your pain? Inability to see the desperate struggle of that deer to live for what it is - a desire to live that is as strong as your own?
You can find yourself to be as improbably as you like - I find you to be all too typical.
AI seems to have two aspects that need solving: Hardware power, and understanding of what intelligence is. On a sliding scale of 1-10, 10 being "solved and adequate", where are we with respect to each of these two problems?
How hampered is AI research by people's "common sense" expectations of what "intelligence" is? For example, Searle's Chinese Room argument captures many people's imagination, and leaves them thinking that nothing in the universe except their brain could possibly have consciousness. Arguments about sentience seem very irrelevant to me, and often lead to this type of attitude. Could AI be making more progress by putting some of these questions aside for the time being?
If the only thing a robot car had to deal with was other robot cars and the road, I would agree. But robot cars will still have to deal with tire blowouts, deer, fallen trees, ice patches, snow plows, salt on the camera lens, low-visibility conditions, flooding, legacy systems (unauthorized human drivers breaking the law), etc. After taking all these things into account, robot cars will probably be able to drive faster and closer together than good human drivers, but not quite as extreme as you indicate.
That's why the future of software is massive regulation. And the Open Source movement won't be allowed to play in Real Life.
Heh. Instead of "Geeks in Space", we could have "Geeks on Strike".
So, in the end, producing Intellectual Property isn't going to make any money. All jobs will be service jobs
I have to disagree here. I think at some point in the future, because of technological progress, IP will be the only thing that makes money (well, service too). Real property (other than real estate) will mostly become worthless. Why? Because, we will someday actually enter the information age (no, we're not there yet). The information age will begin when Star Trek-like replicators are invented, using nano-tech. Once that happens, the only thing worth money, will be design blueprints for the creation of objects. Want a car? Download the design plan you want, feed it into the replicator, and presto! Car made while you wait. Meanwhile, a small fee goes back to the creator of the design, and perhaps a small fee for the dirt-utility that supplies the basic matter from which your car was made.
IP, hopefully in the form of copywrite protection, rather than patent-type protection, will rule as long as we are in a capitalist economy. It will become the only property worth anything, particularly on Wall Street.
All hail corporate power!
All hail corporate efficiency (particularly big corps)!
All hail the death of the evil, evil, small entrepreneur with his evil, evil, new ideas!
:-)
I guess I just don't share your enthusiasm over so-called "corporate efficiency".
Obviously the products that farmers market are in demand. Reduce the supply and you're very right that prices for those products will skyrocket! Lots of this money will go back to the remaining farmers. Now if a whole area is full of rich farmers, it would be very profitable to sell internet service to them at a higher rate, so ISP's would move into the area. In the meantime, other potential farmers would see all the dough that can be made in the industry, so they move to the country and produce. Their production lowers the price of food products. Now the price of foodstuff is back to normal, and ISP's exist in the country. The market at work.
The poor farmers who moved away because they couldn't afford the utilities would get bought our by large corporations with the ability to pay the utility costs and the clout to raise prices of basic food stuffs. Then, when the utility companies move in, and the food industry is very profitable and entrepreneurs want back into the market, they can't, cause the big mega-corps will kill them before they even get started. The market at work.
It's all crap. The only argument against AI is Searle's Chinese Room argument, and it is based entirely on the prejudice of humans who regard themselves as the sole owners of "consciousness". The moment we ask if something else has consciousness or a "soul", we start asking questions like "prove it", and "show me where". WTF???!!?? WE ARE NOTHING BUT PHYSICAL MATTER folks. If you believe otherwise, that is your BELIEF, nothing else. If you can prove to me you are conscious, then maybe we can start talking. Until then, every argument you put forward against the possibility of AI is nothing but emotional prejudice. Maybe someday, we'll need another civil rights movement for machines intelligences because of people who think like this.
Read Halperin for some extremely interesting future tech forecasting.
You say the patent tax would go to the owner of the patent. That would be Amazon. That would be pointless.
No, not pointless - that's the point.
the point of patents is to encourage innovation, not discourage it
Exactly. Thus, receiving the patent tax revenue is the incentive both to a)innovate and b)disclose your invention and patent it.
I find it odd that the "Hogwash" poster complained that my patent tax idea was no different from what we currently have (hello? There's no patent tax - there are only patent monopolies), and now you are responding saying my idea is in effect the same as having NO patents. I guess it would be too much to ask that people would actually think about what they read.
Hogwash? Did you read what I wrote? It is not what we have currently, it is very different.
Currently, companies own the rights to what they have patented. Under what I described, they own no such rights. They simply get rewarded if the technology in their patent ever gets used. However, any individual or company is free to develop products based on the patent without having to arrange a license agreement with the patent holder. Thus, all ideas are owned by the public, and market forces would determine the cost and value of any resulting products.
The patent tax would be applied like a sales tax on any products that use a patent. The money from this tax goes to the patent holder. That is the sole benefit of owning the patent.
Under today's system, companies are not forced to license their patent to others, and are free to hold onto the monopoly themselves, or worse, can simply prevent any product being developed with the patent. And companies with the monopoly can essentially charge whatever price they want for their product (unless the gov. sets price controls - ugh).
I've been considering the idea of instituting a patent tax. Registering a patent under this idea doesn't prevent anyone from using that technology. However, every product sold that falls under a patent will have an additional "patent tax", the proceeds of which go directly to the patent holder.
This would allow the market forces to determine the value of the product, as well as the value of the patent.
Also, the tax percentage could vary for different patents. It could be determined, within reason, by the patent holder. Consider: If Amazon patented 1-click under this system, no one would use it, because using the 1-click would mean their book would cost more. Thus we instantly see that the 1-click ordering is really of little value to the consumer (who votes most honestly and realistically with his pocketbook), and Amazon would probably have chosen not to patent such a thing under a patent tax system.