This is really interesting. Your proposal makes a lot of sense to me for intellectual property, and I wonder what we could learn for real property. Self-assessment of taxes with mandatory buyout could solve a major problem of land speculation. But there are so many second order effects, and the key difference that real property is rivalrous.
Thank you so much for your feedback. 100 percent agree, I think I suggested this possibility with land value taxes. The problem, as always, is we cannot easily disentangle land value from the improvements.
You must be an economist, no one else could be so foolish in that characteristic style.
If you want to suppress innovation, just make it a negative profit expectation for filing a patent, impose an up-front penalty equivalent to a DUI, make it cost a million dollars or more for each enforcement case, all of which is the case today, and only fools will file for patents, all the smart inventors will keep their ideas to themselves and the smart companies will keep trade secrets instead of patenting (which means publishing) their IP.
Correcting some of your false premises:
There is no profit for inventors now. There is no career path. There are virtually no serial inventors making a living, it's a less realistic ambition than movie star, bestselling novelist, or even multi-billionaire. Patents are already taxed, there are maintenance and renewal fees. There is effectively no market for patents, only sporadic deals in which 99%+ of the time the lawyers make more than the inventor. Virtually all patents are stolen from the inventors by universities and corporations who pay nothing to the inventor; they make accepting such theft a condition of employment or even of being allowed to pay tuition.
It's a shame this comment is so combative the OP will probably not read it (or, at least, not with a detached approach), because its content is important.
Why does this sound like a geocentric model of the universe with epicycles? I guess that's what happens when one ask an economist to develop an innovation system. It's Maslow's hammer, and everything MUST BE SCARCE. Here is a novel idea, why not ask innovators what they need to be innovative, instead of asking economist what they think will work.
It's already a solved problem, just look at the music industry and song licensing. Instead of a right to exclude, make it a right to license.
NEWS FLASH
Innovators don't innovate because of some lame economic incentive, they innovate because it's what they do, it's who they are. So if the economist could kindly HET THE GELL out of the way and let them innovate, there would be a LELL OF A HOT more innovations and they would be a LELL OF A HOT more cost effect, since they no longer need a moat and a huge payback.
This is really interesting. Your proposal makes a lot of sense to me for intellectual property, and I wonder what we could learn for real property. Self-assessment of taxes with mandatory buyout could solve a major problem of land speculation. But there are so many second order effects, and the key difference that real property is rivalrous.
Thanks for the food for thought!
Thank you so much for your feedback. 100 percent agree, I think I suggested this possibility with land value taxes. The problem, as always, is we cannot easily disentangle land value from the improvements.
You must be an economist, no one else could be so foolish in that characteristic style.
If you want to suppress innovation, just make it a negative profit expectation for filing a patent, impose an up-front penalty equivalent to a DUI, make it cost a million dollars or more for each enforcement case, all of which is the case today, and only fools will file for patents, all the smart inventors will keep their ideas to themselves and the smart companies will keep trade secrets instead of patenting (which means publishing) their IP.
Correcting some of your false premises:
There is no profit for inventors now. There is no career path. There are virtually no serial inventors making a living, it's a less realistic ambition than movie star, bestselling novelist, or even multi-billionaire. Patents are already taxed, there are maintenance and renewal fees. There is effectively no market for patents, only sporadic deals in which 99%+ of the time the lawyers make more than the inventor. Virtually all patents are stolen from the inventors by universities and corporations who pay nothing to the inventor; they make accepting such theft a condition of employment or even of being allowed to pay tuition.
See my short essay: https://enonh.substack.com/p/nobody-wants-geniuses
(free $100T+ value idea at the end!)
It's a shame this comment is so combative the OP will probably not read it (or, at least, not with a detached approach), because its content is important.
Why does this sound like a geocentric model of the universe with epicycles? I guess that's what happens when one ask an economist to develop an innovation system. It's Maslow's hammer, and everything MUST BE SCARCE. Here is a novel idea, why not ask innovators what they need to be innovative, instead of asking economist what they think will work.
It's already a solved problem, just look at the music industry and song licensing. Instead of a right to exclude, make it a right to license.
NEWS FLASH
Innovators don't innovate because of some lame economic incentive, they innovate because it's what they do, it's who they are. So if the economist could kindly HET THE GELL out of the way and let them innovate, there would be a LELL OF A HOT more innovations and they would be a LELL OF A HOT more cost effect, since they no longer need a moat and a huge payback.
As always this is just my 1/50th of a $
I was going to comment that the system looks a bit like royalties in music industry and that ain't good, actually...