Peter Thiel and intellectual rights under Trump

Too much shop but you might get a tickle.

The question is understandable:

How do we reward innovators?

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/11/21/patent-views-peter-thiel-mean-trump-administration/id=74741/

The article is sound but I was drawn to this

comment
“Well, as Paypal and Facebook co-founder and investor, Thiel had no use of patents
He should try to invest in tech startups which develop something actually useful to people 🙂 (something like Dyson vacuums or Segways or VR headsets etc etc)
I am not saying that Paypal is useless or bad (aside from the fact that any smart 12-year old can open a paypal account and abuse Ebay – I had a BIG problem with that a few years back) – but it’s trivial, it would have come in one form or another regardless of Peter Thiel or Elon Musk
Bottom line: if you feel that you invented some unique and commercially viable technology you will not publicly share it with others unless there is at least some promise of eventual reward for your efforts”

It is interesting to note that Elon Musk and others who can afford it operate based on trade secrets to avoid publishing patents. I think that set know the system is flawed and needs to side with the creators.

He pointed out he might as well send them to China personally, which highlights the problem with fraud and infringement, essentially theft.

We need to stop basing STEM on the assumptions of Communism.
R&D is expensive into trillions, none of those people will work for free to see someone else profiteer. Capitalism comes from ‘to capitalize’, a VERB.

STEM is not academia, these people can’t be bribed into the public sector and don’t really care about a public that insults them.

Either you own what you make, whether it’s a widget or the blue of the widget, or property rights have exceptions depending on your line of work, which is silly when the huge megacorps are throwing their weight around on owning rounded corners.

https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/

But what is patent infringement, if not theft? Inventions are property AND the first object of government is to protect them. So said America’s founders. All such court decisions relegate inventions to second class property, at best, and encourage if not legalize their theft. Does America need another war of independence…from SCOTUS? These are the sort of decisions that make a growing number of Americans believe appeals in patent cases to SCOTUS should be ended. Do they know what they are doing? Has the court become a safe harbor for thieves? They show no respect for or even recognition of property rights.

Those who bribe the politicians want to weaken the underdog, the capitalist competition that might overtake them.

All these decisions do is make it easier for our much larger competitors to rob and crush us. Show us a country with weak or ineffective property rights and we’ll show you a country with high unemployment and a weak economy. Congress must now act to restore property rights in America. When thieves win America loses.”

Most of the thieves operate from Asia, especially China.
The Western governments do not care. Then they cry out in horror when STEM progress decays.

The journalists opposing patents never want to forsake their own IP, the copyright, which is unfairly granted automatically.

The Decade of Technology was Victorian

http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-miraculous-1880s

Boosters of Silicon Valley days are off base: The real tech decade happened rather earlier

Yes it damn well did.
IQ was higher for a damn reason.
Dammit.

Perhaps the most inventive time was the 1880s. Have any two sets of primary inventions and epochal discoveries shaped the modern world more than electricity and internal combustion engines?

Yet they mention Edison but not Tesla.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double

I need to go lie down……………..
You are engineers.

Case study: Inventor innovation and tax rates

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11676069/Want-more-inventors-Then-try-lowering-the-top-rate-of-tax.html

By definition, immigrants are highly mobile, and the smartest ones are probably going to have a choice of where they do their best work. They are probably always going to choose a modestly taxed country to base themselves in – after all, there isn’t much point of doing all the work of creating a new product if the government is going to confiscate half of the wealth it creates.

COMMON SENSE!

There is a little shirtiness in there too, for good measure.

Most analysis of the impact of high top rates of tax looks only at the amount of revenue collected, and the incentives to work more or less. But the greatest damage may well come from destroying innovation, and that is not going to be easily captured by that kind of data. …There will be a loss, however – and an even greater one once you take account of the British inventors who move abroad. At 45pc, we still have one of the highest top rates of personal tax in the world. If a lower rate made the UK a magnate for global inventors, then we’d all be better off very quickly – even if there was some short-term loss of revenue.

It’s a simple question: Who does your country value?
The hardworking producers who make your life easier or the envious socialists who want to tax capitalism so hard it becomes impossible, because if they fail, everyone else must?

But top tax rates will make a significant difference. The new paper for the NBER by Ufuk Akcigit, Salomé Baslandze and Stefanie Stantcheva took data from the World Intellectual Property Organization from the 1970s onwards, and looked at the impact of higher top marginal tax rates on the numbers of patents filed. [DS: good methodology] It placed particular emphasis on ‘superstar’ investors – that is, those with the greatest number of patents, and the most valuable ones. It found that higher taxes meant fewer patents and vice versa.

Paper record here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21024
Remember, patents are filed with government. The policies of the government and treatment therein (red tape) will either encourage OR discourage, there is no neutral because the process is already difficult and expensive.

http://www.nber.org/digest/jun15/w21024.html Two papers on the subject, actually.

If inventors and scientists are important contributors to economic growth in their state or country, then their migration in response to tax progressivity is a potential cost of such a policy. These studies may provide broader insights if the mobility of highly productive inventors sheds light on how taxation affects the location decisions of other educated, talented, high-earning workers.

If you welcome the Boat People (criminals) and shun the high-tech job creators, frankly, your society deserves to die a long and painful death from terminal stupidity.