Swiss-style Basic Income and IP

To the ill-informed, "Basic Income" is a social security system in which the government regularly gives each citizen a sum of money — with no conditions. No questions asked, no obligations. 

There is a referendum in Switzerland, which if passed would give each adult resident the equivalent of 2750.00 dollars a month. You can read the proponents thoughts here.  In short, the theory is, without the necessity to obtain income necessary to live, people could make more resumed choices about their careers. They could made different choices about how they spend their time. As a result, you might have a more efficient economy. 

Obviously, there are people, including economists, who think this is a terrible idea. The argument against Basic Income is that the whole system will collapse in a morass of lack of motivation to actually work. People will move their expenses down to the level of the Basic Income and then forego employment. Opting instead, it is argued, to just sit around all day. 

I take no position on which one of these outcomes is likely (or the likeliness of this idea gaining traction in the US). Wikipedia has a good run-down on the pros and cons.  However, I do take a position on the economic outcome of people sitting around. I tend to lean on the side of "that's great". 

Why? Because people freed from the restraints of taking ANY job to make ends meet, will naturally gravitate towards their hobbies. When people focus a lot on their hobbies, they tend to turn those hobbies into occupations. We see that with the craft "everything" movement. A zest for baking becomes a bake shop, a thirst for brewing your own beer becomes a craft brewery. A love of reading has become self-published media empires (Ed. a bit close to home....).

Freeing everyone from the constraints of occupation would lead to some people just sitting around. It would also lead to an explosion of new businesses financed by the Basic Income. 

Some of these new businesses would create new works of intellectual property. New artistic, musical, literary works; new software platforms; new devices and new methods could all spring from Basic Income. These works could be licensed world-wide; generating taxable revenue to feed back into the Basic Income system. 

Many Venture Capital organizations have an "Entrepreneur in Chief" position - a person paid to basically think stuff up. We are constantly being told that America needs more "innovation" and "entrepreneurship" and that IP is a step in the wrong direction. Basic Income matched with IP might allow the America to realize the dream of being a "Start-up" Nation where everyone is paid to "think stuff up."

Tax Policy for NPE ('Patent Trolls") [Wonky]

'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin (noted scientist, inventor, philanderer  founding father, and fit model for currency).

The current debate around NPE (non-practicing entities, i.e. Patent Trolls) had me thinking about the law of unintended consequences and taxes. (Yes, I know, boring).  

I think everyone can agree that the ultimate goal of the AIA changes to the patent law were driven, in no small measure, by companies wishing to eliminate the threat of Patent Troll suits. For a general counsel with the ear of the legislature, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable use of power and influence. For the solo inventor who honestly believes that MegaCorp has ripped him off, it looks like corruption of the highest order. 

Resolving these two conflicting visions is nearly impossible. For MegaCorp, it honestly believes that Solo inventor is just a crook who is hassling their highly successful venture. For Solo inventor, he has invested time, but more importantly, money in acquiring a patent and MegaCorp is reaping all the benefit.  Furthermore, to Solo, it looks like the law has been changed to favor one party over the other. 

While the AIA might cut down on NPE suits, it will likely have inadvertent effects that we are barely aware. As such, I tend to not agree with wholesale legal changes as a way to eliminate 'bad' actors. When profit is the motive, very bright people will expend effort to find the loophole.  The problem with the AIA is that it targets the result of NPE actions (suits directed against major tech companies) instead of the goal of NPEs (Profit!). 

I would have advocated using tax policy to target the goal, not the result. 

On MegaCorp's side, Tax policy could be changed to make a new taxable income category for reasonable royalties as assessed by a court for infringement of a non-practiced patent.   Currently the tax rate for recovery in settlement and and reasonable royalty recovery by judgement are the same (~35% and taxed as income).  However, a change is the way that the IRS treats recovery from settlement vs recovery from litigation would lead NPE's to maximize their profit through the most efficient way possible.  If the tax rate for reasonable royalty (of a Non-practiced patent were sufficiently high, it would alter the calculus of going after MegaCorp, especially given that attorney fees are not tax deductible. Likewise, tax policy could be used to reduce the windfall that a true NPE could recover based on a past damages.

While this might drive NPE's into settlements instead of broadside litigations (which is what most GC's are really worried about), it would still leave Solo inventor holding the bag on his out of pocket patent fees.  

One way to lesson the impact to Solo is to use tax policy to unburden him of some of the cost in acquiring the patent.  This system would work as thus: The IRS would allow, given the size, income and subject matter, a tax credit for money spent acquiring a patent. This could be as simple as acquiring a tax credit for application fees, or it could be as complex as some formula for a tax credit that takes into account the amount of money that was spent in prosecution. 

These are obviously rough sketches of a goal oriented solution to the NPE problem, while trying to make sure that honest small inventors are not thrown out with the NPE bathwater. 


Jordan Garner 

BitCoin and Licensing Fees

This post assumes you are aware of what BitCoin is and why someone might think it is a good idea to ask for payment of license agreements revenue in it. 

For those who don't know, Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer, anonymous digital currency.

Huh?

Exactly, the concept of Bitcons, how they are made, who has them, and what they are doing with them, are all beyond the scope of this post. I direct you to the Wikipedia site.

For the purposes of this discussion, all you need to know is that Bitcoins are a digital exchange medium. Think of it like an electronic commodity, cyber-gold, if you will. The goal is to have (by whom
?, why? Again, complicated) anonymous commercial transactions over the internet. This would free people from the prying eyes of repressive regimes, allow greater freedom of commerce internationally, and allow people to skip out on paying taxes.

You read (ha! all 2 of you) this blog for IP information, not Libertarian Economic Theory; so what's the point? Well, the point is that we are rapidly converging on a world in which small entities (single person firms, small skill based collectives) are all global companies. Each App creator, Web designer, even self-published author, has the ability to distribute and obtain revenue from a global audience.

One way in which small businesses can gain revenue is by licensing or otherwise monetizing their IP. The most common way this is done is by signing a contract that specifies a certain amount of money, either up front or on per - purchase - basis in exchange for access to the IP. While licensing your tech out for BitCoins in a up-front paid up license, is... a position; licensing your IP for a set number of Bit Coins in the future, or sales in made in Bit Coins, is not advisable.

"Why?", you howl, "I was about to license my tech, for anonymous tax-free Cyber-Space money!"
Well, the problem with anonymous tax free Cyber-Space Money is the chart below.

This chart shows the exchange rate of Bitcoin to US Dollar over a 1 week span. I think the reason not to use Bitcoin as the unit of value in your agreements is pretty obvious. If you had licensed your tech, for 1 BitCoin = 149.00 USD for use in certain Apps, and those apps went on sale on the 6th of April, then you would have made a bad call. (*note, Bitcoin has recovered some market value from the lows put forward, but the volatility remains.)

While initially each sale of your tech was netting you 150USD, by April 10th each sale was netting you 250.00. Huzzah. Then, April 11th rolls around. Devastation!  You are now netting 75USD per tech sale. This is a 50% reduction of your originally agreed upon license fee. Did you lose a war? Zombie Plague? Nope, just the random volatility of the commodities market.

The reason why you don't do this is the same reason why you don't license your IP for the "sale price value" of a Condo in Dubai in 2034. While there are arguments to be made for the upside, there are clearly reasons why such as speculative agreement is not the best way to maximize your IP value.

The way to maximize your IP value through licensing is to license your tech (or art, or published works) in the currency of a regime that places a strong value on IP rights, and a stable currency. Secondly, your agreements should be constructed to provide you with a fair market value of the IP, not speculative upside seeking. A stable license agreement for the duration of a copyright (Life + 75 years, i.e. see Jackson, Michael) is a great way to provide multi-generational economic stability.  Gambling that on an electronic currency is not the best use of your assets.

Jordan Garner

Libertarians and IP

[Warning - random post on Legal Theory. This post could be a lot longer, but I have decided to break it into parts so that it is a bit more manageable for myself. ]

I have noticed a general upswing in the amount of Libertarian bloggers (and Neo-Liberal ones too) who have decided to come out on the negative side of general IP rights and protections.  While some of this is merely band-wagoning after the SOPA debacle, I think some of it comes from the general Libertarian concept that the enforcement of property (the tangible type) rights is the only reasonable use of governmental authority.

To avoid mis-quoting anyone, I will generally surmize the concept behind the Libertarnian objection to IP (as I understand it). This is going to be necessarily broad, so if you want to know what your favoriate Ron Paul Voter thinks, I suggest you look here, and here.

In general the Libertarian theory is more easily illustrated by the following theoretical.

Alice writes a piece of music and performs it to her own enjoyment in her yard. Rob, her next door neighbor, without trespassing, records the performance and uploads it to a file sharing site. Jim, a creative advertising executive, downloads the recording and uses it in a Super Bowl commercial. The commercial earns Jim wide acclaim, recognition and untold riches. Alice does not get any money or recognition. 

According to Libertarian theories, this is a perfectly acceptable outcome (if not the preferable one).  The argument underlying why this is O.K. is that Alice has never been deprived of her rights in the use and enjoyment of her property.  All that has been "misappropriated" is Alice's potential future ownership in the profits that Jim would have had to pay her in a regime where the government mediates these sorts of transactions. 

However, the Libertarian argument fails when you consider why you have a regime of Intellectual Property protection in the first place. Now, we could have a huge conversation on the dichotomy of the Moral vs. Economic Theory of Intellectual Property, but that is for another blog post.  Safe to say that the Constitution (Libertarians love the Constitution) spells out a moral theory of Intellectual Property.

   

   Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution empowers Congress:

   To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. 

By engaging in the "promotion" of Progress, Congress and the framers have set themselves a moral task that can not be easily superseded by claiming that the economics of "progress" are such that those rights should be limited to that which is tangible. The argument should never be focused on the "economic" rights of the IP holder, they are ancillary to the issue.  The government is charged with "progress";  how we as an economic and political system allow for maximization of progress, is tangential to the original goal. For example, if as a society, we decided that all musicians should be put on government stipend, then the original framers intent could still be met. Arguing that "progress" is met by not "promoting" is a laughable on its face, and clearly not borne out in reality. 

Libertarians run up against the fundamental problem that capitalism, practiced in the U.S. in the early 21st Century, requires that IP be priced in the market place. Destroying the pricing mechanism, without providing an alternative mechanism for "promoting" the arts and science yields only what Ayn Rand called "Moochers".  A society of takers, who, because there is no way to feed themselves from the sweat of their intellectual labors, find themselves shelving the potential of great work, because they live in a society that doesn't value it. That society asks people to create for the pure enjoyment of it, while also having a day job. There is a reason why this system does not work well. In order to re-order a system, people should at least acknowledged why the system was erected in the first place. As GK Chesterton noted, "one should know why a fence has been erected before one tears it down."

Jordan Garner