Via slashdot, a letter in the Los Angeles Times by Dallas Weaver raises an interesting point. While propogandists for the copyight and patent mills are eager to have their exclusive grants treated as "property" they don't seem terribly interested in paying property tax. Since they've successfully managed to press the term "intellectual property" into the dictionary, why not charge them a property tax? This is a serious suggestion with serious benefits for two reasons.

First, it would go a long way to solving the problem of automatic copyright and orphan works - it would force copyright holders to emerge from the shadows or give up their copyrights. Moreover, it would get around some ridiculous language in the Berne convention to the effect that "The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality." It's not that you wouldn't get your rights if you didn't pay your property tax, any more than you would if you didn't pay property tax on your car. You would of course go to jail.

Second, owners of houses and automobiles and the like pay taxes on their property in exchange for real government services they receive ranging from roads to police. So also with owners of "intellectual property" who receive a variety of government enforcement services - which at the current time they do not help to pay for.

Interestingly, there is a percedent for this, both in current patent procedures and historically in American copyright procedures.

For patents, to maintain a patent in force for the full 20 year term currently allotted, patent holders must pay maintenance fees at 3.5 years of $800, at 7.5 years of $2020, and at 11.5 years of $3,100 (at least as of the time I wrote up my class notes). This both provides revenue to the USPTO for their patent processing operations, and serves as a deterrent for maintenance of unprofitable patents.

For copyright, the process for obtaining copyright protection in the U.S. throughout the 19th century (under the terms of the 1790 Copyright Act) required submitting a free copy of the published work to first the Secretary of the Interior, and later the Library of Congress, and paying a processing fee in the process.

So, the principle of taxing intellectual "property" is actually well-established.

I have to agree with Dallas Weaver and David K. Lavine. If IP is a property the owner should pay property tax.

In replay to Stephen Spear, Tax is different from registration fee. Do you pay registration fee when you buy a car or house? I'm sure that you pay it. At the same time I agree with you that this registration fees could be seen as tax. But let compare the taxes on IP and Real-estate.

In Las Vegas is you own a house appraised at $300,000 you may expect to pay at least $1,000 per year.

If you own a patent that makes $300,000 per year you pay only $3,100/11.5years that equals about $270 per year. That is really sweet deal!

This is far from serious. Do you even know what a "property tax" is? Would you impose a sales tax? A registration fee? You do know that in myriad ways (registrations, tax on revenues, corporate tax, sales tax on patented items) IP rights are effectively taxed now? Are you certain the level is too low? How would you set the level, or even begin to think about an appropriate amount? How do you propose (and how to you believe this happens now, exactly) corporations deal with patents as assets? Why do you think property is or should be taxed? Will your anarchist compadres agree with you that it should be taxed? Actually, the more i think about it, the sillier this really is. by all means, establish formalities. treat both copyright and patent systems as registration systems. pay fees for service. pay for access to courts, etc. but the view you espouse here is hardly serious. it's a cute rhetorical attack on your opponents, to be sure, but not worth much.

Geoff is asking interesting questions. Thank you. Let see how much tax the owner of IP pays in sales tax:

Task: Company A and B are producing products X and Y. Company A has patent on product X, but company B do not have patent on product Y. Both company are selling their product in state NV (for example sales tax 7%) How much more taxes company A paid then company B. Company A set the price of product X to $100 and during the sale it collects additional $7 from the consumer. The collected tax of $7 is transferred to state treasury. Income is $100.

Company B, after negotiation with consumer, agrees on sales price of $100. It also is obligated to collect additional $7 in sales tax and transfers it to the state treasury. Income is $100.

Answer: Sales tax paid on paten by company A is $0.

Now, do I know what and how much patent registrations, tax on revenues and corporate tax are? No I don't because I am engineer not an accountant. Do I know what is sales tax? Yes I do, because I pay it every single day on patented or not patented products. If there is an accountant please show us how the Intellectual Monopolies (called IP) are taxed.

It is funny to be called anarchist, it is OK to be a silly as long I am not stupid to buy into the propaganda from Hollywood studios, RIAA and Patent Trolls. About the inventors and all creative people stop paying "taxes" to be member of ‘Old boys club'. The well establish system, that Geoff refers, is serving well to the 'Old boys club' and their lawyers, but no body else.