CNET's podcast, "Buzz Out Loud," mentioned an LA Times article suggesting
what I think is a wonderful idea. The Intellectual Property Tax!
Their theory (or the theory of the article) is that, if IP owners want the
full protections provided to Real Property, they should be subject to the
same taxes as Real Property. The whole idea for the Special Relationship
for IP was that it would be protected sufficiently so that the inventors
would make enough money to incent inventers, but would not interfere with
the future use to promote the progress of science and useful arts. But
that ain't happening, because if someone invents new IP content, they are
protected for a couple hundred years after the death of the inventor.
Kinda defeats the future use of that IP, now doesn't it.
So put me down for the Intellectual Property Tax. Except...
Wouldn't that mean that only rich folks could protect their intellectual
Yeah, that's a deal-breaker.
So how about a decending scale of fees, versus time? But that still means
that a Poor Guy doesn't have much protection at all.
So, "Buzz Out Loud," and Los Angeles Times, you kinda miss the mark.
Maybe a bell-curve would work. Original invention, free. Build up till X
date, and you have to pay the taxes up to that date, decreasing after that
Except, if there's a tax and you're rich, you're protected. If there's a
tax and you're poor, somebody else owns what you created.
Not gonna work. Nice idea, though. Seems like it ought work. Kinda like
legislation to ban flag-burning, or the three-strikes laws.