FTA: "The new fee would be a much more exorbitant cost for some patent holders that would function like a property tax."
I've long thought that'd be a good idea: The government practically gives away these legal monopolies — but really, they're like hunting licenses, allowing patent holders to try to levy (what amount to) taxes that are paid indirectly by the public. So it doesn't seem unreasonable that the public should get its cut.
Yes, sometimes a patent holder really is providing a benefit to the public in exchange — but not always.
sorcerer-mar · 11m ago
> allowing patent holders to try to levy (what amount to) taxes that are paid indirectly by the public.
What are you referring to here? The premium that a patent holder (one who created or purchased novel, valuable IP) is able to extract?
This is a reward for taking risk in R&D and for sharing the result with the public via patent disclosures, not a tax.
bix6 · 18h ago
Hey you know how the government can raise revenue? Tax the billionaires!
This is a stupid proposal.
credit_guy · 17h ago
Why is it stupid? The patent holders that would pay the most are billionnaires, right? Either humans, or corporations. Don’t you think this is good?
bix6 · 14h ago
Accounting games will mean they don’t pay. Just raise the corporate tax rate instead. Likely will hurt smaller companies.
taylodl · 17h ago
To understand what "Trump" wants to do with patents, just read Project 2025. Patents are covered.
bediger4000 · 18h ago
This sounds like a great idea to me. Why should we as a society enforce exploitive monopolies for some evil mega corporations? Make them pay.
salawat · 17h ago
Roger that. By the way, we factored that tax burden into the license fee so you can utilize the covered device/process, so in actuality, we the patent holder, aren't paying the tax, you the licensee are. Our accountants, if they were yours, would advise you to pass the cost onto your customers.
That money never comes out of the top level legal fictions. It's always the consumer.
I've long thought that'd be a good idea: The government practically gives away these legal monopolies — but really, they're like hunting licenses, allowing patent holders to try to levy (what amount to) taxes that are paid indirectly by the public. So it doesn't seem unreasonable that the public should get its cut.
Yes, sometimes a patent holder really is providing a benefit to the public in exchange — but not always.
What are you referring to here? The premium that a patent holder (one who created or purchased novel, valuable IP) is able to extract?
This is a reward for taking risk in R&D and for sharing the result with the public via patent disclosures, not a tax.
This is a stupid proposal.
That money never comes out of the top level legal fictions. It's always the consumer.