Be Careful Not To Use Any Patented Tax Shelters This Tax Season
from the have-fun dept
Last last year, we wrote about the growing trend of patenting tax strategies and deductions -- and now that it's tax season, that story has reappeared. lavi dave writes in to point to yet another story about patented tax deductions. This isn't getting very much attention because most people don't realize how it may impact them -- and about the only people talking about it are (of course) patent attorneys and financial types who are hoping to get rich off of these patents. The article includes quotes from one patent holder who insists that of course tax strategies should be patentable since he had to "think outside the box" to come up with it. His attorney also comes up with some totally unsupported statement that somehow this "levels the playing field." What's not explained is why any of this is patentable. If the tax deductions are allowed by the law, then it seems pretty ridiculous to think that it can be limited by a monopoly right. It's another bastardization of the patent system, where people are using it not to create incentives for actual innovation, but to figure out ways to force others to pay for doing what they would normally do otherwise. It's important that people realize that the patent system is now trampling on their rights, rather than helping promote innovation. In the meantime, of course, the trend has continued to build. Back in October there were 50 such patents granted, and 81 pending. Apparently, the numbers are now 53 granted and 84 pending. So as we get to tax day, besides going over all your tax forms and deductions carefully, you may need to spend an extra day pouring over patents to make sure you're not infringing...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the fact is... a number of patents for tax strategies are incredibly complex, and novel, and not entirely obvious... and thus, they are open to patent.
as stated by others. what the f*k have you ever done, aside from create a site where you're essentaiily a glorified writer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or is that phrase patented as well.
Despite my pithy reply though, does anybody else find it utterly absurd that the vast majority of time being spent by the courts is to resolve conflicts where one person is attempting to take advantage of ________ (fill in the blank, be it corporation, person, insurance, etc.) by using the already broken and withering legal system.
and of course if anybody disagrees with my opinions or phrasing they can of course sue me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tax law and sam being a dicktective.
why is it when an artist does something creative, it gives us a work of art, but when an accountant like mike the dicktective, does something creative, it costs us our 401K plan.
sam, if mike is a glorified writer, then you are a glorified poster which in turn is a glorified nothing. .i know this because i am one. welcome. so why do i point to the blatant obvious? well, mike was only pointing to the absurdity of it all. yet you feel the need to punish everyone with your ignorance. calling you and ignorant fool is too easy. i would rather call you an accountant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"a number of patents for tax strategies are incredibly complex"
Is merely complexity a merit for get a patent?
If way for pay taxes is complex, all tax policies should be improved, shouldn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And...?
The whole idea of charging for tax strategies is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the actual fact is that complex and novel != patentable.
Lots of things are novel but not everything is patentable. It isn't even clear that the patent office has constitutional authority to issue software or "business method" patents.
By sam's reasoning, lawyers should be able to patent all of their novel arguments in a defense or prosecution. Need to fight and win a lawsuit? Or a criminal prosecution Well, sorry but you'll have to shell out for Megacorp's patent portfolio because they own all the novel dense strategies. Can't afford it? Too bad.
Patents are constitutionally only to be granted for the "advancement of the arts and sciences." Patenting the public law or ways to use the law would not fulfill this aspect of the constitutional authority and it would not be in the public interest by any stretch of the imagination.
And as for what the blogsite owner has ever done...well, he has made a compelling site that you felt a need to post on while at the same time feeling a need to act superior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I fail to understand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jail time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No you don't
If you pore over patents, then your infringement becomes knowing infringement, which leaves you liable for triple damages. Whereas if you didn't know about any prior patents, then your damages are reduced accordingly.
In other words, it's in your interest not to go poring over patents. Could get very expensive if you do.
IANAL, of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most rediculous part...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax Patents - A lawyer wrote it - so why would any
Is that a patent attorney -- which I hope to be is hired to make a patent so complex, incomprehensible and overly descriptive to confuse, befuddle, and overwhelm the patent agents at the USPTO -- who by the way are trained in the sciences and engineering at a beginner level -- so when a patent attorney who liases with scientists the name of the game is complexity -- it is the way to make sure no one knows really what is under patent and then used to gracefully (ha ha) extort smaller companies who actually use innovation which low and behold someone patented -- remember the internet patent fiasco --- where someone got the patent to domain name structure and in turn would be allowed to seek license fees for any top level domain name ---
Tax evasion strategies are the products of accountants and most the time tax attorneys -- who by the way know about the patent system -- but the only problem with these tax structures and schemes is they are the product of the tax code -- and since any tom dick harry and jane can read the tax code it would seem that if anyone holds these patents it would be the IRS -- but who knows -- I would like to see the tax patent individual litigate the process -- but in reality these patents will be applied to the VERY RICH -- and in turn it will seek to avoid the fiasco law firms such as a Texas chain which also has offices in new york and chicago that was charging rich clients for opinion letters without doing work --- so with a patent they can charge fees without additional work to avoid ethical violations since they would be charging a license fee to each client not billing for previous work --- seems like a clever novel idea -- wonder what mega firm thought this up
BUt u know who really cares anyways only the ultra rich will be able to benefit from this ----- wait till someone sues a single mom for tax evasion and see how long these patents are held to be legitimate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patents?
I think people are confusing copy rights with patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I Missing Something Here?
It's one thing for patent holders to go after infringing products in the marketplace; it's another for them to go digging in my personal tax stuff to find infringing strategies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye tasty breakfast... :(
What do you need to know to work in the patent office? I'm going to get a job there and fix this nonsense. :-/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Goodbye tasty breakfast... :(
No but chefs are asking for patents on recipes! (Seriously they are) and food industry is trying patents on assemblies of ingredients (i.e. trying to make it sound like a manufacturing process rather than a recipe).
He's a typical patent attorney encouraging them to go for it:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/recipes.html
It's the old jealousy thing. If he can make millions from patenting by suing big corp then I want it too! But it's unproductive work, and just moves money from corps making new things to trolls making 'documents' (the end product of a patent troll is a document, the end product of an innovator is a new product).
I wonder how bad it has to get before Congress will step in. With more and more corps switching sides to the anti-patent lobby it's only a matter of time before enough lobby money forces them to fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Class action lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All that the IRS has to do now is to look up these patented strategies and close those loopholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the fact is.. i'm a member of the software tech world, and doing quite well. and yeah, i have run across issues where what i, or the companies i've worked for had to deal with patents that someone else had acquired. did it piss us off, as we couldn't license, and it was going to cost us $$$ to find a solution if one could be found.. yeah. it did. but that's a cost of doing business.
companies i've worked with have also been granted patents because we put $100,000s into the development/research process to create the software.
feel free to argue about patents all you want. but what you guys who are for abolishing patents/drm free musci/etc.. are advocating is to pretty much allow you to have things for free...
as i said, if you want to develop things, and i get to take it for free, then we can talk. but for the most part, i'm pretty sure you haven't really developed 'software' that you need/want to create to be paid for, that you're willing to let someone walk away with.
or better yet.. go put your cash into creating a movie that you'd like to make money from. and then allow everyone to watch it for free... you wouldn't do that..
so.. unless you're ready to really talk about the fundemental issues surrounding the patent process, then shut the f*k up.
is the patent process abused by some. sure, everything that's in our legal system is abused by some.. but you don't toss the system. you tweak it. the patent/copyright/legal system/process essentially allows you to build something, and tries to ensure that you can get paid for it, without someone else ripping off your ideas/processes...
now go back and play in your cribs...
peace...
ps. i'd really like to get a feel for the ages/backgrounds of people who are against patents..
i'm in my early 40s.. a former software developer (compilers/microcode/etc...) microprocessor design..
hae a good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've seen all of our F100 tech clients spend enormous amounts of $$$ on getting things patented just to avoid anyone else doing it and being on the receiving end of a scam. It's a huge waste of money that would have been better used funding more R&D.
Never mind all of our startup clients, they often spend a huge percentage of their funding to secure patents for the same reasons.
If you are really part of the software business, then you would know that "patents" are usually the punchline to a joke, not something to be proud of.
But my guess is that you are just a troll.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boy...this really is ridiculous...The government is granting patent rights on methods of cheating the government!!!!!!
Next thing they'll be doing is to grant patents on suicide bomber vests...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam's comments
I've seen people like you, wearing those "No software patents" T-Shirts, running in circles around the Parliament and shouting :Freedom"...
Alll the guys in their 20's, no kids, no houses, no responsibilities attached ...
When you finally grows up you will realize that everything exists for a good reason, including the patent system
Is it abused ? Yeah, of course, like the insurance system, like the stock market, like everything else which is even remotely connected to makling money...
But, for Christ sake, stop propagating those stupid marxists ideas ...
Of course, some people, like RMS never grow up, they remain in their teens forever, live in a cubby hole on university campus, never have families and kids..
If you want to be like RMS, then go ahead.
The rest of us want to live our lives and be paid for our hard work "promoting the progress" so you, idiots, can buy those stupid I-Pods and HDTVs, from your allowances...
Have a nice day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sam's comments
I'll give you a clue. In the almost 30 years of it's existence, Microsoft, the LARGEST software company on the planet, has sued people exactly twice over patents.
Twice. For patents.
Face it, most patents are defensive in nature, not to have a short term monopoly on technology.
The patent system did work with it's design limits, but now, like most legacy systems, it's hugely broken, particularly in software and business method patents, most of which fail to meet any sort of innovation test for those experienced in the art, as they should.
It's quite clear from your comments that you know little or nothing about the software business and how it operates, particularly here in Silicon Valley. It's easy to speculate from your couch in Iowa about how iPods (because the iPod was such an original idea... not, see Rio) and other technology comes to market, but that speculation is usually wrong, just like your idea that patents protect anything.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sam's comments
For God's sake, don't make a fool out of yourself, using your real name to sign your idiotic posts.
Silicon Valley? H-aH-0aHa-ha................
Microsoft, THE LARGEST SOFTWARE company nener sued anyone on patents ?
Let me explain some simple things to you, my little ignorant friend.
MS from the very beginning was not based on innivation, they came to power by monopolizing the market, by appropriating and strealing other parties inventions, as many other tech companies did.
Yeah, it's true that they didn't use their patents, so far, to sue anybody - partly becayse their patents are total junk, insult to the US Patent System.
They are ussually on the receiving end of the patent lawsuits currently defending in about 30-40 ongoing patent infringement cases.
The most recent one was a harsh one - Alcatel's (aka Lucent aka Bell Labs) 1.5 bil award.
All those cases are real, otherwise they would be thrown out by the judge immediately,
So you see, my little retarted friend, it is YOU who knows nothing about software bussiness.
And Mike is a just PR hack, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sam's comments
MS from the very beginning was not based on innivation, they came to power by monopolizing the market
Please explain to me how one automatically monopolizes the market without innovating?
It's true that Microsoft did copy many industry trends, but they did a much better job bringing those products to market in a way that people wanted. That tends to be good for the market.
by appropriating and strealing other parties inventions, as many other tech companies did.
Isn't that called competition? Do you have a problem with competition in the marketplace? Weren't you just accusing *us* of being "Marxists?" I'm confused. Which is it, angry dude. Do you like markets or not?
Yeah, it's true that they didn't use their patents, so far, to sue anybody - partly becayse their patents are total junk, insult to the US Patent System.
Again, you're not making much sense. You go on and on about how wonderful the patent system is, and then whenever we point out a specific patent, you claim it's junk. If the patent system is so great, why did they approve so many junk patents?
The most recent one was a harsh one - Alcatel's (aka Lucent aka Bell Labs) 1.5 bil award.
For a patent that is very much in dispute. So, I wouldn't crown Alcatel a winner just yet.
All those cases are real, otherwise they would be thrown out by the judge immediately,
Apparently you haven't paid attention to the legal system very much (which is funny because you comment angrily on every post we write about it). The court system does not seem to be very good at throwing out cases revolving around junk patents. See NTP/RIM for an example.
So you see, my little retarted friend, it is YOU who knows nothing about software bussiness.
I can't speak for Chris' company from firsthand knowledge, but I do know it's been around for quite a while and has a fantastic reputation. So I'd guess he knows quite a bit or he wouldn't keep getting business.
And Mike is a just PR hack, of course.
I find this particularly amusing. What do I have to do with PR? We're the opposite of PR. Companies hire us to tell them what they're doing wrong, generally. Techdirt tends to focus on the mistakes companies make, rather than promote anyone. We're not about PR. We're about telling it how it is -- and I'm sorry if you disagree, but so far you've been unable to give a compelling reason for your stance. All you do is insult us and make factually incorrect statements. It's not very flattering to you, I'm afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Anti Crowd
The so-called 'Anti-Patent Crowd' WANTS patents.
Hope you can read that one correctly. These people you barrage for their 'stupidity' with their unhappiness with the current patent system actually WANT patents.
They just want the Patent System to work AS INTENDED.
The current system has turned into a sick joke. No other system is so easily exploited. No other system doesn't adapt to changes in technology.
Look at software patents. Are they a good thing? They can be. Should they last as long as they do? No. Patents for software last longer than the software itself is used. The patent is to protect your 'innovation' for as long as is necessary, not for eternity.
Now who wants to bet some asshat doesn't either A. understand this, or B. notice the obvious exageration with the word 'eternity'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sam's comments
I've seen people like you, wearing those "No software patents" T-Shirts, running in circles around the Parliament and shouting :Freedom"...
He falsely assumes that because he's seen some people saying something, that anyone who says something vaguely similar must have identical views on things. Making assumptions like that is bound to make you look ignorant...
But, for Christ sake, stop propagating those stupid marxists ideas ...
Please explain how pushing for a free market solution is "marxist"? We're opposing gov't granted monopolies, which is a lot more capitalistic than wanting the gov't to give you a monopoly.
The rest of us want to live our lives and be paid for our hard work "promoting the progress"
Exactly. And you do that by selling your products in the open market. Welcome to capitalism.
So what was your complaint again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you still love me people? (even if you love me, you gotta pay, because I CAME UP WITH IT!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you and i both agree that patents are inherntly good/useful, and that the process might need to be tweaked a bit... then we're more or less on the same side...
the degree to which the 'tweak' should be applied will be the devil in the details process.
i'm all for patents... i'm for google's patents, which one can argue has allowed them to be quite successful.
my gut tells me the issue of how to 'tweak' the overall process will be where you and i disagree...
sam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm curious, what about Google's patents have "allowed them to be quite successful."
I would argue that it's got nothing to do with their patents. Who have they sued for patent infringement?
What's made them successful is delivering a product that people actually want and which they value. Lots of others have tried to copy it, and from a technology standpoint have done just as well -- but Google hasn't used patent infringement charges against them.
So, again, I'm curious as to how you can claim that Google's patents have "allowed them to be quite successful" because there appears to be no evidence of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
never said that google had sued anyone... (although they may have threatened, or actually initiated an action)
i agree that google has developed a technology/boz model that customers/advertisers have wanted.
i'm arguing that if you were to create a search biz, and implement an approach similar to "page rank", then you're going to be sued for patent infringement by google...
if you implement a PPC process that copies what google has regarding the underyling processes/approach, then you're going to be sued for infringement.
it's the same thing companies do to protect their interests..
i've never claimed that google has had to sue for infringement. what i stated, was that their patents afforded them the ability to be successful.
if google had developed pagerank, and not patented it, other companies (msoft) could have easily implemented a similar system to generate search results at least as good...
and this was/is critical, as the reach/visibility of google via the search was what allowed google to then copy the PPC model from idealab's "overture" (if i recall) which was purchased by yahoo. by the way, google's implementation of PPC did result in them being sued
so, as i stated, patents are cool....
sam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Has Google sued Yahoo or Microsoft -- both of whom have created similar approaches? So, sorry, your argument that Google will sue you for patent infringement is false.
Secondly, that still doesn't explain why patents were critical to Google's success. What was critical to their success was delivering a product people wanted. That had nothing to do with patents. They could have just as easily done it without patents.
if you implement a PPC process that copies what google has regarding the underyling processes/approach, then you're going to be sued for infringement.
Again, that doesn't seem supported by reality. And, the fact that they haven't had to use it shows that it had nothing to do with their success. Their success was in that they competed and delivered a better product than anyone else.
i've never claimed that google has had to sue for infringement. what i stated, was that their patents afforded them the ability to be successful.
Again, this is not supported by the facts. What's wrong with just competing in the market place (as Google did) to be successful? Why should they get a monopoly?
if google had developed pagerank, and not patented it, other companies (msoft) could have easily implemented a similar system to generate search results at least as good...
Microsoft has developed a similar system... and it *wasn't* easy. In fact, many studies now say that Microsoft's technology is actually better for search... but they haven't been able to attract users. So even if Microsoft could have easily copied Google, there's a lot more than just the tech that made Google successful. So, again, sorry, you've failed to show how patents have helped Google in the slightest.
and this was/is critical, as the reach/visibility of google via the search was what allowed google to then copy the PPC model from idealab's "overture" (if i recall) which was purchased by yahoo. by the way, google's implementation of PPC did result in them being sued
Very, very, very bad example. Google took a pretty obvious idea (online auctions for ads) and implemented it much better than Overture ever did... and they got sued and had to pay up a ton of money that could have been better spent on R&D. The only thing that example shows is how Google was *hurt* by patents, not helped.
so, as i stated, patents are cool....
And yet you fail to explain why.
Sorry. Not very convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you and i are not going to agree on this. and that's cool. but google and i agree, and i think that's even better!!
the fact that someone can compete with google, doesn't mean they've infringed on google's patents, so if they haven't infringed, there's no need to sue.
but if you follow my thesis, i stated that if you had created a system similar to google's and infringed upon the pagerank patent, that google would have sued you.
the fact that there are now similar search systems, and perhaps better systems is irrelevant to my statement. google was able to create a good system, and to protect it, so that they were able to build an appreciable lead in the market. this lead has for now become somewhat tough to overcome.
but i'll make you a deal. if you work for a company that has any kind of patented IP, go ask them to simply allow your competitors to have the technology with no recourse, no lawsuits...
if they agree, i'll gladly buy you and your family dinner. would you do the same for me?
and as far as overture. you are incorrect. look at the lawsuit. read the docs. don't twist what the lawsuit was about. unless you're stating that the lawyers didn't know what they were talking about... in which case, we really will never come to seeing eye to eye on this issue.
the lawsuit wasn't because google did a better overture (ppc). the lawsuit was an infringement on the patent(s) that overture had been granted. you make not like it. but don't start spinning, and creating fiction. again, read the lawsuit/docs.
anyway... this is what makes the world go around. but if you want to spend 100s of thousands on creating technology, and you want to allow others to more or less copy your success then i'm for cheering you on. in fact, if you were to do that in an area that i'm working in, i'll be the 1st to reverse engineer what you've created.
if your success is based on your technology, (not your implementation) then you'll save me a great deal of expenditure in creating technology. that's $$$ that go to the bottom line. hell, i'd even send you a thank you note!!!
by the way, if you also create a successful web site that's generating a good deal of $$$, and part of your success is based an the look/feel, i'm sure you want mind if anybody simply/blatently copies your look/feel/design.
like i said, i don't think we're really going to agree on this one... so, to let this rest, might be best to agree to disagree...
good luck in your field of endeavor!
sam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except both Yahoo and Microsoft did create a system very similar to PageRank... and Google did not sue them. So your thesis is wrong.
google was able to create a good system, and to protect it, so that they were able to build an appreciable lead in the market. this lead has for now become somewhat tough to overcome.
But their ability to build a lead in the market and make it tough to overcome has nothing to do with patents. You keep claiming it does, but there's simply nothing to support that.
but i'll make you a deal. if you work for a company that has any kind of patented IP, go ask them to simply allow your competitors to have the technology with no recourse, no lawsuits...
Well, you made a bizarre statement there, first saying it has to be patented IP. We already encourage people to take the content that we write here and to do with it whatever they want. As for our technology IP, we simply decided not to patent it (even though we were told that some of it is patentable). So, yeah, go ahead and make use of whatever you want.
if they agree, i'll gladly buy you and your family dinner. would you do the same for me?
Well, I'm CEO, so I get to make the decisions -- and everyone in the company knows that we're not going to sue over IP. In fact, we just had to argue with some of our lawyers over the issue, where they wanted to put in highly restrictive clauses concerning IP, and I had them completely rewrite or get rid of them, because there was no need for us to protect the IP in that situation.
So, when will you buy me and my family dinner?
and as far as overture. you are incorrect. look at the lawsuit. read the docs. don't twist what the lawsuit was about.
How did I twist what the lawsuit was about?
if your success is based on your technology, (not your implementation) then you'll save me a great deal of expenditure in creating technology.
But that's just the thing. Success is almost always about the implementation. The technology is a component of that, but usually just a part of it.
by the way, if you also create a successful web site that's generating a good deal of $$$, and part of your success is based an the look/feel, i'm sure you want mind if anybody simply/blatently copies your look/feel/design.
Nope, go right ahead. We've said it before. The thing is, most people will recognize that you're a blatant copycat -- and that negatively impacts your reputation, while boosting ours (for being worth copying). So go ahead. The net result will help us and hurt you, so you probably want to think twice about it.
good luck in your field of endeavor!
You too, though I'm surprised that throughout this post you keep talking about how you want to copy others. If you're really so innovative, why aren't you out-innovating others, rather than waiting for them to do a better job so you can copy them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the surface, one would react with incredularity regarding the fact that someone is stating that recipies can be patented, and is encouraging cooks to go for it!
however, after reading the article you point to. the author plainly/clearly states that in his opinion, most recipies would probably not be granted a patent.
his thesis is that doing the patent process might be goog for advertsing!! nowhere in the article does he state that you'll probably get a patent.
as far as the advertising angle.. might work. i'm not sure how many people would want to eat a dish that had "patent pending" next to it..!! particulary when a growing movement appears to be just get back to basic/fresh food. (recall the backlash against gene altered corn!) the advertsing angle might work. it's a common reason for some people to sue larger companies (or name brand companies) to get an advertising bump!
so no, the article isn't pushing to get patents for recipies. if anything, it might be construed to say, "apply for the patent to get the advertising, but your chance of getting a patent probably aren't that great"
sam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
RandomThoughts, sam said that, not I. I found the statement just as baffling as you do. I responded to it and asked him to explain, but he did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
once more..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, fuck people, my universities are partly paid with that tax money! The least you can do is thank the government with your contributions to taxes!
I understand not wanting to support the war in Iraq and stuff, but in that case it's best NOT to pay your taxes, and take the jail hit as opposed to exploiting loopholes. Didn't MLK say that breaking the law, and accepting the consequences was showing the utmost respect for the law?
As for the patenting... Eh, I don't really give a crap there.
But tax loopholes shouldn't be patented because they're, well, kinda evil. You're stealing money. You know that guy selling the tax-loophole book shouting free money and stuff? I just want to punch his fucking lights out. That money exists for a reason, and it's not to line your greedy pockets people! No money without goods! No goods without money! Else you get hyperinflation and crap, and I DON'T want to see that....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stealing
> patented because they're, well,
> kinda evil. You're stealing money.
This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen in a long time.
First, if the law allows me to, for example, take a tax deduction for moving expenses, I have not stolen any money from anyone if I actually use that deduction. Obeying the law as passed by the government itself can't be considered stealing under any definition of the word.
Second, calling it stealing implies that it's the government's money to begin with. It's not. The money belongs to the citizen first and foremost. The citizen earned it. It's theirs. If there's any stealing going on, it's the government that's doing it by taxing it (and essentially taking it at gunpoint) in the first place.
While taxes may be a necessary evil that we all have to live with in order to have a government, that doesn't mean that anyone who minimizes their tax burden to the extent allowed by law is a thief.
> That money exists for a reason, and
> it's not to line your greedy pockets people
Actually, you're right. The money does exist for a reason. It exists because the citizens earned it. And there's nothing wrong with a person wanting to "line their pockets" with money that they worked for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what??
please excuse me while i get back to work on a sunday so i can continue paying for your schooling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the fact is... a number of patents for tax strategies are incredibly complex, and novel, and not entirely obvious... and thus, they are open to patent."
Sam, you are such a clueless idiot, why don't you just STFU and face your shortcomings on *any* subject?
Being unable to grasp most things doesn't mean you have to yell out loud you're too stupid to understand by posting idiotic rants like this...
Do yourself a favor and STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recipes are a good example
Actually he talks about recipes as though they are no different from other technical areas, and points to the difficulty of creating a novel recipe and going after infringers.
I think this and the Tax shelter patent problem share a common problem:
AN ACCOUNTANT HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING IF THE TAX SHELTER HE'S JUST THOUGHT OF IS NEW.
As a previous commenter points out, who would know if you used someones patents tax shelter? But flip that over, how can you know that your newly applied for tax loophole hasn't been previously used?
You can't, it's the same problem!
Same with recipes. It's highly likely your recipe was made before, since there's only a finite combination of ingredients and cooking operations. But who would patent such a thing, and how would prior art ever be determined?
New recipes arrive all the time, WITHOUT PATENTS. I just knocked one out today, Mee Krob Toffee Krispies (Thai Mee Krob substituted into Toffie Krispies in place of the rice crispies).
Firstly the problem of detemining novelty:
Can I find prior art? No.
Is it likely to have been done before? Yes of course it is. Even if I can't find the recipe, it will have been done before!
But also a new issue:
What the hell are patents useful for in this case? We have new recipes created all the time, they don't need the encouragement of patents to be created!
Who cares if it's copies quickly, the cost to bring it out was negligible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you really do this
also with the ever changing tax laws would tis even be worth the time and investment
I don't know this just seems moronic to me but what do I know I'm a network/server geek
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you hae something intelligent to add to the argument/discussion, then by all means, contribute.
but your posting dosen't add anything to the discussion. it does however indicate that you think i should 'STFU'.
you quote part of what i stated, and then call for me to 'STFU'.. you never state where I'm wrong, or what your point is...
have you ever applied for a patent?
have you ever been part of a team that has applied for a patent?
have you ever created novel technology? (not simply reuse some open source CMS app)
if you really haven't been in the trenches, then grow up, get a set, and then comen bace when you have something intelligible to discuss. in the mean time, stop dribbling on yourself, you're embarrasing your parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
example of a
This is just one of many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
um, gary. copyright is vastly different than a patent.
also, to the point regarding recipies.. in all honesty, i really can't see the point in obtaining a recipie patent, given that food tastes change, and that there's a pretty low cost to coming up with new/innovative/different recipies.. although, the advertising angle might have value..
but getting back to the point of tax strategies that are novel, innovative, and possibly patentable. some of the strategies at this level are nicredibly complex, and can be thought of as processes which could be considered to be as vaibale as a process/algorithim that is patented and incorporated in a software app...
you may not appreciate it, but this is how the game is played, and should be played. that said, if someone can come forth with one of these strategies, and show that for anyone who's in the game of tax planning/accountancy, that this kind of person would state that the strategy is obvious, then the patent should be struck down.
for you and i, the strategy might be incredibly complex. for a partner at Ernst, they migh tsay it's blatently obvious, and shouldn't be granted..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The IRS can end this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The IRS can end this
> declaring any tax shelter practice
> for which a patent is sought illegal.
The IRS doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally declare things legal or illegal. The U.S. Congress passes the tax laws. The IRS can only enforce them. If the law as written by Congress allows for a deduction or a shelter, then the IRS has no power to say otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Visit fairtax.org if you don't have a clue what the FairTax is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this policable
How specific Do they have to be with these shelters? I am not terribly knowledgeable on tax law or patent law so It is not necessary to take me to seriously, but I just don't understand how this is policable, at least till e-file is mandatory.
Also, it seems like it would cost more to have teams of people pouring over tax records to find those who infringe upon the rights of the patent then would be made by those that paid royalties for use of the patent.
Lastly, What I do know is that a Tax shelter is not tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal and a tax shelter is legal. I am not saying that some of them are not shady but the fact is that some people need these shelters. I feel that a big problem is that people are confusing tax shelters and tax evasion. The Problem is that like many things our system is not perfect and it is abused. There is a difference between rationalizing an action and making a good one. Tax shelters help the rich get richer, but they can also help a father of four keep food on the table or send his kids to school.
As for the a55 that is complaining about tuition increase, i am a student and i feel for you but don't complain to people that are using the system responsibly when more then likely as a student you get most of your tax money back and don't pay for all of your schooling.
Sorry for any miss spellings, it is my down fall; if any of the information i stated is incorrect please correct me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do they even know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to begin... yahoo/msoft have indeed created a search engine/search technology that some claim to be comparable to google. that's not my point.
my point was that they had to do it without infringing upon google, and that during that time, google was able to build up a lead that they have not relinquished. my point was that if google hadn't had the patents/IP protection, yahoo/msoft could have easily copied what google had accomplished, with a lot fewer resources, compressing the time to market, and thereby potentially changing the game.
the patent protection played an arguably large role in allowing google to explode on the market.
with regards to the issue of IP/patents for your company. who gives a damm about writtent content. actual technology driven IP/patented technology costs a great deal to create. that's my point. and if you are honest, and believe that you'd be the ceo of a company, spend a few 100K/2-3million on some software technology, and then you'd give it away to your competitors, let us know. i'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to have access to the tech/IP.
the fact that you would let someone copy/use your writing/content, while admirable, is pretty irrelevant to the argument i'm making.
sam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But that is your point. You're saying that if they did that, Google would sue. But they did that and Google hasn't sued.
my point was that they had to do it without infringing upon google, and that during that time, google was able to build up a lead that they have not relinquished.
You keep saying that, but you don't seem to have any support for it. Both Yahoo and Microsoft created systems that are quite similar to Google and which Google absolutely could use some of its patents to sue for. However, they did not.
my point was that if google hadn't had the patents/IP protection, yahoo/msoft could have easily copied what google had accomplished, with a lot fewer resources, compressing the time to market, and thereby potentially changing the game.
Again, this makes no sense. If anything it was probably *easier* for Yahoo and Microsoft to copy Google because they had the patents to work off of. However, what they discovered was that even though copying the technology was possible, it took a lot more than that to actually get people to use their service.
Again, the patents did not protect or help Google in any way. Yahoo and Microsoft took the same basic innovation and copied it. But, they didn't realize that Google's success was about a lot more than just the technology.
the patent protection played an arguably large role in allowing google to explode on the market.
I don't understand how you can keep making that claim when it's clearly false. Other companies clearly copied Google's main innovation (which they actually copied from some university research).
actual technology driven IP/patented technology costs a great deal to create. that's my point. and if you are honest, and believe that you'd be the ceo of a company, spend a few 100K/2-3million on some software technology, and then you'd give it away to your competitors, let us know. i'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to have access to the tech/IP.
We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on our technology and we haven't patented it. Anyone is free to copy it if they can figure out how and we certainly won't sue for patent infringement. But, of course, we know that our technology can be copied, which is why our business model isn't focused on selling the technology, but a service around the technology. That way, if anyone copies the technology, they're only a tiny part of the way there.
So come on, when are you buying me and my family dinner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
http://jasperforge.org/
http://www.sugarforge.org/c ontent/open-source/
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/default.mspx
http://www.orac le.com/technology/products/database/xe/index.html
All free, all cost millions to develop. Plenty of companies do this, not just these. It's an essential strategy in some business models, particularly those which value total customer revenue over quarterly or annual revenues. You should really read The Long Tail by Chris Anderson (http://www.thelongtail.com/), which explains why these business models work very well.
BTW, both JasperSoft and SugarCRM have received around $50 million in three rounds of funding. The others are public companies valued in the billions of dollars.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]