Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Though your points are valid, you may be ignoring a larger issue. Taxes on profits still affects margins and commerce. They just do so indirectly. Why don't we, instead, tax WEALTH. This was difficult prior to the advent of computers and sophisticated tracking, but is becoming more and more easy with advances in technology and regulation. Taxing wealth would do (at least) two things:
1) It would provide an incentive for people to make their money work to generate income - income wouldn't be taxable, but wealth (money sitting around) would. Debt would DIRECTLY offset your taxable wealth, so functional money would be highly valued.
2) It would work to normalize social stratification. People at the bottom have zero net wealth (or negative net wealth). People at the top have extraordinary net wealth.
Of course, reason number two is why this plan would never happen. It would, however, be far more efficient than taxing anything directly related to commerce.
This stat is quoted frequently, but is almost always quoted out of context. Americans pay more for health care than any other "first-world" nation. Americans' life expectancy is not significantly better than many other "first-world" nations (I believe America is around #30 or so for life expectancy globally). HOWEVER, America's overall health and life expectancy for those over the age of 65 is by far the best in the world. Americans pay more for health care . . . but these payments actually produce results.
The real question is still efficiency. SHOULD Americans pay so much for this benefit? Americans don't live to 65 more than most other countries. That means that all of the payments are benefiting (likely) those with incomes above a certain level. THIS is where the argument should be focused.
What we have with medicine as a science is the problem that occurs when you assume that results from clinical trials can be applied uniformly to all patients. They cannot. Different people will respond differently to any given treatment. Sometimes the differences matter - sometimes they don't.
The problem is exacerbated when you're trying to verify sporadic anecdotal evidence. Take the knee surgery example cited above. For some people, the surgical procedure is incredibly effective at alleviating pain and improving function. For many, it does little good. We don't have a good way of determining who is who yet. We may never have a good way of determining who is who. Should we stop the procedure all together? Should we deny its benefits to those on whom it would work?
So . . . medicine is not pseudoscience. Medicine is a practice that attempts to use information obtained through the scientific method. The scientific method produces results with limited applicability. It, however, is the best we've got.
There are many ways outside of patents. Be the first to market. Be the best implementer. Be the most frequent innovator. Be most in touch with consumers. Generate the strongest brand. Solidify dominance, through branding, in a certain market segment.
Some of these actions require more resources than others, but there is almost always a way to do them well on the cheap . . . depending on how broad or how narrow your marketing plan is. The broader your targeted market, the more you're going to have to spend. Talk to a business/marketing consultant. Frankly, a good marketing plan is MUCH more valuable than a patent.
Let me explain the debate a bit -
The bill proposes to link reasonable royalties to what the court deems is the value of the technological innovation of the patent. This removes any market valuation of the patent, i.e. what a patent holder can extract from a potential infringer through a negotiated settlement. Instead, the court will assign the value of the patent by sitting back and thinking about how valuable the technology is in this instance. What it fails to take into consideration is that, in most cases, patents can be used to PREVENT someone from making, using, selling, etc. the invention.
This inherently devalues the patent. If you can only extract the value of the added quantum of technology added by the patent, you sometimes won't be able to get damages at all. For instance, if an infringer used your patented technology, but they could've alternatively used some public domain non-infringing technology, you won't get much in the way of a damages award. There is a problem with this arrangement - it changes the fundamental nature of a patent.