Congress Trying To Make It Legal To Ignore Tax Planning Patents
from the wrong-approach dept
We've written a few times about the rush to patent various tax strategies. That, by itself, should be evidence enough of some of the problems with the patent system. However, rather than deal with those larger problems, it appears that our Congressional Representatives are trying to take the cheap way out: creating a special exemption that would exempt taxpayers and tax preparers from risking infringement should they use any of these "patented" tax strategies. While this bill may be well-intentioned, like the attempt to allow banks to ignore a questionable patent on check scanning, it's the wrong approach. Rather than dealing with the root causes of problems with the patent system, these bills look to paper over the manifestations of those problems. In the long run, such laws (if they become law) would only make the system worse. It's nice that Rep. Rick Boucher (who often is on the right side when it comes to intellectual property issues) recognizes that tax preparation patents are a problem -- but this isn't the way to solve them.
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
Filed Under: congress, patents, rick boucher, tax planning, tax strategies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why "papering over" problems benefits Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are tax strategy patents "evidence...of some of the problems with the patent system."?
"...deal with those larger problems..."
What larger problems?
"...attempt to allow banks to ignore a questionable patent on check scanning..."
Why is that patent questionable?
"...root causes of problems with the patent system..."
What are these root causes you mention?
"...Rick Boucher (who often is on the right side when it comes to intellectual property issues..."
How can one tell is someone is on the "right" side as opposed to the "wrong" side?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's actually quite easy when one pulls one's head out of one's ass.
"Why are tax strategy patents "evidence...of some of the problems with the patent system."?"
Why would you be able to patent a tax strategy? How can you patent a strategy?
"What larger problems?"
That the patent system is far to easily abused at the moment?
"What larger problems?"
The linked to article makes a vary good argument for that
"What are these root causes you mention?"
Like patents aren't being reviewed by anyone that actually knows what the patents are about. The patents are overly broad and cover things far outside what the original "invention" was. The patents are used on items that were created by others long before the patent was filed. The list goes on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The linked articles, like many of the comments in your reply, are based upon broad generalizations. Specifics are always a nice thing to have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I may not be siting specific patents but the simple fact that you can patent a tax strategy should point to at least one problem that will probably lead to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If anyone thinks it is easy to get a patent, they have likely never gone through the process. If there is a problem with examining patent applications, it primarily lies with the quantity and quality of information available to patent examiners for them to determine the prior art and consider the patent's claims accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. It involves some aspect of game theory, as such, whatever is inventive about it is reduced to strategy, and therefore cannot be reduced to practice, ergo not patentable.
OR
2. It involves no game theory and is nothing more than a the result of a long, methodical process of optimization within an already existing, defined, codified, and volumized system of constraints, which means any qualified accountant could derive the same constraints and perform a duplicate process of optimization, and therefore it fails to be non-obvious, ergo not patentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Limiting the methods by which people can pay their taxes clearly has nothing to do with promoting the progress.
What larger problems?
Where to begin? The fact that repeated studies have shown the patent system hinders, rather than helps, innovation. The fact that the patent system is used to limit, rather than enhance new innovations. The fact that the patent system distorts the market, often in dangerous ways. The fact that there is no evidence showing why a patent system is actually useful in promoting the progress... and on and on and on.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004156568.shtml
Why is that patent questionable?
Scanning checks is an idea that has been discussed for ages. It was the natural progression of the marketplace. No patent was needed to create incentives for that innovation -- and now that patent is holding back that innovation, by limiting a rather obvious process and extorting monopoly rents for it.
What are these root causes you mention?
Granting widespread monopolies in so many cases, rather than in the rarest of cases, as was originally intended.
How can one tell is someone is on the "right" side as opposed to the "wrong" side?
Those who actually look at whether or not the IP system is doing what it's intended to do: promote the progress. If they're looking at evidence and seeing that it is not, and therefore should be fixed, that would suggest they're on the right side. Those who focus on the legal aspects or assume that any IP system is "good" are on the wrong side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Face Time
Politicians claim to tackle the "big" issues, but as Mike and the other posters have pointed out the politicians are not really interested in solving our problems. They simply project an appearance that they are being proactive so they can look good (face time) before a constituency. Smoke and mirrors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Root causes
That's not just politicians - that's humanity in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
larger problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: larger problems
This from the guy who has repeatedly insisted that any big company accused of of patent infringement is a thief.
Identify them and I will respond in opposition.
Um, how about the fact that study after study after study has shown that patents do not increase innovation? How about the fact that studies have shown how the patent system distorts markets and hinders the efficient market from working.
We can start with those.
Referencing Boucher signals your lack of understanding of the matter.
"Referencing" Boucher? The bill is sponsored by Boucher. Who else was I supposed to "reference"?
He is in part responsible for this patent bill before Congress that will only abet patent theft. Stv
What does that have to do with anything?
I'm amazed at the dittoheads who support stronger patent laws like yourself. To you, everything is black and white: big companies are thieves. Anyone who notes problems with the patent system are in the pay of these big companies. Anyone who supports patent reform of any kind is obviously clueless.
I understand your position, but until you can back it up with actual evidence or relevant facts, please go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: larger problems
Since I am obviously limited on what I can say, suffice it for me to note that I have read all of the studies you have cited and found them lacking in several material respects. How nice it would be if before these studies were prepared the authors sat down with longstanding practitioners of the law so that facts, cases, and what the law actually comprises were shared in a professionally respectful manner. In my view that would yield papers that would enable the articulation of accurate and relevant economic principles holding the promise of yielding coherent economic principles that could help guide the meaningful development of public policy. Unless and until this happens, lawyers and economists will continue to butt heads...which I believe you would agree is not particularly helpful in the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: larger problems
Um, what? We do not have a limit on the length of response. In fact, we've had some incredibly lengthy responses.
Can you provide any details on the comment that "disappeared"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: larger problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: larger problems
Many of the issues they address concern matters that are well recognized and understood by attorneys and businessmen alike who have been around this "game" for a long time. I truly believe such economists would find it very illuminating and helpful to work hand in hand with such people, perhaps even adding some as co-authors.
BTW, maybe my comments were lost due to some kind of a hiccup with Internet Explorer 7 and/or Vista. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]