How soon before corporations demand the right to vote?

Anybody care to predict when corporations will earnestly attempt to get rights to vote in elections? Take any of their absurd arguments for legally buying politicians (q.v. Citizens United supreme court decision)  and tell me how a reasonable person with integrity would defend that and not the maximally obscene idea of corporations getting the right to vote for President (or congress etc.). I note this here on my blog as yet another time stamp to test my predictive powers. I hope I'm merely being provocative and extreme in this prediction. I hope I am proven wrong about corporations demanding the right to vote. I fear this post will be like the meme that says there is no satirical Onion article so extreme that someone won't believe it's true.

Random idea: Wedding Registry - Cable,Cell,Utility Bills

Don't know if I'm the first to think of this but I'm pretty sure, at a minimum, it ain't popular yet: "Wedding/Baby Registry for Bills" This would be in addition to or instead of couples registering for random gravy boats and place settings for grand dinner parties they'll rarely, if ever, have. Maybe I'm overly-practical or iconoclastic but this idea is undeniably useful. Plus, it's less crass than cash since you're buying, for example, a month of "the works" cable package and can take vicarious pleasure from them recounting the great shows/movies they saw. But it's as useful as cash since they likely would be spending that money anyway (or a substantial portion of it if they ordinarily have more scaled-down cable packages). This should be particularly attractive to cable companies since people are often lazy and stick with the extra channels once they've signed up on a trial basis. The cable companies could have an extra-special discount deal for newly married couples who sign-up for the registry package. And of course this system could apply to any recurring bill (cable, Hulu, cell phone, landline, water, electric, trash, club memberships, annual vacations, even rent & taxes!). The key is that it would be quantified in days, weeks, months with corresponding amounts. "Thanks for the two weeks of electricity. You know we're using it!" SIDE NOTE: The paternalistic giver can take pleasure in knowing bills will be paid (pre-paid) especially in the case of particularly young or impulsive couples (e.g. those with gambling or drug addition problems). Hey, it's no worse than registering at half the cheesy stores out there.

CORRECTION: On February 24, 2011 - I actually wrote $86 (not $87)

CORRECTION: In my June 23, 2011 post (http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/06/get-out-of-your-short-position-on-oil.html) I made an error. I erroneously mentioned that on February 24, 2011 - (http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/02/oil-at-100-seems-really-highshort-it.html) I wrote $87 was my target price. The correct number was $86. And my June 23, 2011 advice is to get out before the target in order to "book the win" so my consistently profitable prediction streak continues. But don't forget that my prediction was nevertheless still good since following my advice would have netted you a nearly 9% profit in 4 months. NOTE - I include my errors, corrections and bad predictions on my blog to further prove the integrity of the posts. .

Get out of your short position on Oil

CAVEAT: I am not a professional financial adviser. Please consult one before you consider taking any of my advice. This blog is for entertainment purposes only. On February 24th, 2011 - I advised selling oil short (when it was $100 a barrel). http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/02/oil-at-100-seems-really-highshort-it.html "Oil at $100 seems really high since the fundamental use (demand) and availability (supply) substantially haven't changed (IMHO)." Well it's June 23rd, 2011 - And now that oil is at $91.04 I'm advising you to get out of your short position and book the roughly 9%+ profit in 4 months. My amazingly great oil price prediction streak continues. Has anybody noticed or fully appreciated that? BTW - It could go lower still but I love the validation of making consistently profitable recommendations. So even though I originally said sell at $87, I'm saying now book the win and be content. .

Words Invisibly Recalibrate: Another Reason Testing Predictions is More Valuable Than Reviewing History

I'm a longstanding proponent of using science over history in determining future policy. The Scientific Method insists on "Testing Predictions" which enables crucial falsifiability. Whereas History can be cherry-picked for only the confirming data. This is much like con-artist tarot card readers whose "cold reading" techniques use "confirmation bias" to trick suckers into thinking supernatural/paranormal powers exist. But this post is about how "Words Invisibly Recalibrate". When you were a small child you probably thought regular black pepper was "spicy". As you got older you probably recalibrated to simply consider it a "seasoning" and then you thought that jalapenos were spicy. If you grew up in a home that enjoyed a lot of Spanish or Indian cuisine then you probably don't think that jalapenos are that spicy. And so maybe a Habanero chili pepper or Bhut Jolokia is your new defining spicy ingredient. The Scoville Scale scientifically measures "spiciness". Here are some examples: Pimento: 100 - 500 Scoville units Tabasco Sauce: 2,500 - 5,000 Jalapenos: 2,500 - 8,000 Habaneros: 100,000 - 350,000 Now if I quoted you as having said "Black Pepper is the spiciest thing in the world." That shouldn't mean much if you were 7 years-old at the time and have since gone on to taste much spicier foods. Similarly, when we quote historical figures we should be equally skeptical even when they use the same words we use today. Consider these powerful words : Freedom, Free-Trade, Socialism, Protectionism Recall your own quotes about them. What if they meant something different back then? Surely they did, if only with respect to context and their particular factors. NOTE - I have previously blogged about "Republicans' Shifting Definition of Socialism". When you read The Old Testament of The Bible there are grandiose-for-the-time phrases like "the land flowing with milk and honey" to communicate abundance. When today virtually every single first world country (and surely every Western country) does indeed "flow" with milk and honey. Why didn't The Bible describe the comparatively much more glorious cornucopia of bounties in a modern, standard Costco? Penn Jillette is among the skeptics who say something to the effect of: "If the average Vegas magician did his act 2000 years ago he would have been heralded as a god." And don't forget Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." History necessarily uses the same words (or translations) when the contextual differences have rendered the thoughts moot. That's because history as a social science is most flawed at "isolating the variable for measurement". Another historical term that offends me (even though I'm Agnostic) is the term "King of Kings". As if the power differential between a human king to a regular person would be at all equivalent to that of an Omnipotent Supreme Being compared to a human king. Though I'm sure it was a useful comparison in the time of kings. But that's my point - communication is meant for its time and its desired audience. To take quotes out of that context is to make any statement that was possibly "valid-for-the-circumstances" potentially vulnerable to complete or partial invalidation. For example: 1) Ptolemy vs. Copernicus 2) The original U.S. Constitution protected freedoms & voting rights for only white men who owned property. Whereas today we recognize that as absurdly narrow and unfair. Next time someone attempts to assert the supposedly unassailable authority of our Founding Fathers you can dismiss him because he used to think black pepper was spicy. .

Reminder to Self - Explore & Write about Probability Problems

Don't really expect anybody to read this. Just a reminder to myself to write about probability problems.... 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Paradox 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesis 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem Crux of my point here is what I believe to be the crucial distinction between odds before an event happens vs. the odds after an event happens when you're not yet aware of the outcome. Maybe this is a semantic & meaningless distinction. Have to give it a lot more thought. But for economic and political policy reasons I currently think the distinction is important and woefully under-examined. Example: You and I want to bet on a fair coin-toss. If we bet before the coin is tossed then we can fairly reduce the variables down to the intuitively fair bet of 50/50. But if I toss the coin first and cover it before we bet then you can choose to implement heuristics and treat it as an identical situation. Consequently you think the odds are still 50/50. But the reality is the odds are 100/0 and you simply don't know which is which. I currently think this is a subtle but important point. Because I think it can nullify some of the counter-intuitive paradoxes (in the links above). In the two-envelopes problem it is obvious to everyone that switching for infinity can't actually increase your expected utility. I'm envisioning the permutation tree of possible outcomes for a given event. Standing at the point where it branches into two possible timelines is different from standing past that point and simply being blind to your position when you make a bet. My intuition is telling me that because the latter is a sucker bet for one side it is thus necessarily more game-able (cheat-able). Consequently, it requires greater protections/constraints on potential cheaters. This is related to the supposed geniuses who wrecked our economy by creating financial models that didn't appropriately track to the real world while nonetheless convincing investors otherwise.

Advise your boss to "pretend he's guilty"

The old saying about political scandals is: "The cover-up is often worse than the crime." Most recent evidence (as of June 2011) : Republican Senator Coburn and Democratic Congressman Weiner. So here's my recommendation to all those working for any politician: If you hear about a scandal involving your boss, no matter how 'unbelievable', take him aside and say the following: "Don't deny the rumor! Just pretend you're guilty. Then make a public admission and apology. The media is always fixated on scandals (especially sex scandals) because they're much easier to understand compared to policy issues. Let's simply admit it because only that will enable us to move on to the important issues." This tactic may be just enough of a dissembling kabuki dance to get some of the actually guilty people to make the right choice instead of letting instinctual defensiveness compel a futile strategy of denial. Hopefully, the actually innocent will maintain their innocence. Whereas the guilty will thus have enough of a face-saving "out" to tell the truth (while only pretending that they're lying). Of course this won't work with true sociopaths. But it's worth a shot. .

I add to the reasons why property crime rates keep dropping.

WSJ notes reasons for the continued drop in crime rates: - increased incarceration - rejection of previous notion that high unemployment necessarily means higher crime - potential victims better at protecting themselves - better policing - 80% drop in lead levels in Americans' blood (bravo to the EPA!) - decreased cocaine use - increased abortion reduced numbers of children most likely to commit crimes (q.v. controversial research cited in "Freakonomics") HERE'S MY ADDITIONAL REASON (at least regarding "property crimes"): Tech goods dropped in price. Consider this: in 1980, a stereo or VCR cost $300+ and that amount would be like $800 today. Whereas the modern equivalents of those devices are 1/10th the price. And expensive modern TVs are just too big to getaway with in a practical way. Relatively speaking, it's simply tougher for a modern burglar to steal valuable things that can be easily resold. Just my quick little "brainstorm". I could easily be proven wrong on this. ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: My favorite part of the article... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870.html There may also be a medical reason for the decline in crime. For decades, doctors have known that children with lots of lead in their blood are much more likely to be aggressive, violent and delinquent. In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency required oil companies to stop putting lead in gasoline. At the same time, lead in paint was banned for any new home (though old buildings still have lead paint, which children can absorb). Tests have shown that the amount of lead in Americans' blood fell by four-fifths between 1975 and 1991. A 2007 study by the economist Jessica Wolpaw Reyes contended that the reduction in gasoline lead produced more than half of the decline in violent crime during the 1990s in the U.S. and might bring about greater declines in the future. Another economist, Rick Nevin, has made the same argument for other nations.

Improvement to my "CLIP" IP Policy Idea

For reference please review my previous post about "Compulsive Licensing of Intellectual Property"... http://corpania.blogspot.com/2008/02/clip-compulsory-licensing-of.html Here's my newest improvement: "The Ten Million Users Threshold" In order to transition to my better system of Intellectual Property AND ALSO to prevent the problem of "being ahead of your time", modify the regular patent system to be "CLIP-Activated and EXTENDED for 10 years" as soon as an invention has 10,000,000 users. Might be a little tricky to define who is a "user" - (q.v. does a bus have one user, the owner, or all its passengers?). But in this way the inventors wouldn't be punished for being ahead of their time.  Douglas Engebart patented the computer mouse in 1970 but it didn't really take off until two decades later (after his patent expired). _____________________________________________________________ Here is the extended explanation of CLIP/CLIRP that I sent to Ian Lloyd, Professor of Information Technology Law at University of Strathclyde (who graciously gave me insightful feedback & encouragement). ----------- Proposal for Patent "CLIRP"                                                      March 5, 2008 ("Compulsory Licensing / Inventors Revenue Pools") By Dan Abrams http://www.linkedin.com/in/optevi         ABSTRACT Intellectual property must exist in some form to incentivize innovation and thus encourage progress. The current system of government-enforced monopoly is massively flawed because it literally precludes progress. The current system is not necessarily the best, nor is it only way to achieve the objective of progress. I have an alternate system that maximizes progress and enables profit-participation for inventors through the capability of what I call CLIRP "Compulsory Licensing Inventors Revenue Pools". My claim: Invention is primarily what makes life better for humanity over time, not business. Business is good primarily insofar as it encourages advancement for humanity. The current patent system may be good for business but not for advancement.   The goal of this proposal is to incentivize invention, discourage counterproductive litigation and end the suppression of progress. (Pretty ambitious, huh?) What this proposal does not attempt to address: "Simultaneous Invention" - which will always be a problem.   What is the purpose of the current system of patent protection? To encourage advancement by providing inventors with a profit incentive by means of a legally enforceable 20-year monopoly.   What are the motivations / positive implications of keeping the current U.S. patent system?   1) To reward advancement with a monopoly intuitively seems effective.   2) Giving the inventor total control over his/her invention intuitively seems fair.   3) Making it incumbent upon the inventor to profit from his own invention motivates not just the advancement itself but also its commercialization/popularization (so the idea is actually put in use by the public).   4) Making substantive changes to the current system would, at least initially, place a giant burden on the legal system. And such a burden would need to be significantly outweighed by the proposed solution.   What are the negative ramifications of the current system of patent monopoly?   1) A competitor that is threatened by a new invention has a motivation to purchase the patent rights for the sole purpose of killing its competition (e.g. hypothetically - old light bulbs that need to be replaced every year are likely way more profitable for a light bulb manufacturer than a newly patented light bulb that need only be replaced every 10 years.). It can do this by enforcing the newly acquired patent rights and thus preventing any use of that invention.   2) Businesses have a strong incentive to use their offensive patent rights to preclude competitors from any advancement that is remotely similar to their own. Instead of reasonably fighting over "rightful profits" companies actively quash progress with the help of the courts.   3) Businesses predicated upon IP have an incentive to be secretive and non-collaborative (which is antithetical to scientific advancement). This is particularly dangerous in the pharmaceutical industry where legitimate research data that are contrary to the product's claims of safety are intentionally excluded (q.v. VIOXX debacle where it was withdrawn from the market after defrauding the FDA and New England Journal of Medicine ). Secrecy in research can literally kill tens of thousands of Americans.   4) Inventors must also be entrepreneurs or else be otherwise beholden to businessmen to commercialize their ideas. This reduces the incentive to invent and further motivates smart and creative people to become businessmen instead of inventors. It shocks most people to learn that "Big Pharma" spends significantly more on marketing & advertising than it does on R&D. The skills and talents for invention do not completely match-up with those of a successful entrepreneur or businessman.   5) Patent infringement lawsuits are expensive and an unnecessary burden on the courts. The patent lawyers end up racking up limitless hourly fees on top of massive percentages of judgments and settlements. There is an incentive to use the patent monopoly as a pure business tactic (legitimate or not) to threaten to hinder the competition in order to extort lucrative settlements.   6) Most inventions that are patented are never commercialized to the point where the actual inventor sees revenue (let alone a profit above his costs of development and patent application).   7) Patent infringement lawsuits are litigated in courts where non-expert jurors have to "get up to speed on the basics of field" before the merits of the case can even be broached. This wastes time, money and legal resources while achieving less intelligent verdicts.   What is my solution? CLIRP ("Compulsory Licensing Inventors Revenue Pools")   The following is one possible implementation of the CLIRP concept. Of course, specific terms and aspects would be subject to political and legal wrangling as well as corporate diplomacy. I propose: for a 5 year window inventors applying for patents could select a traditional patent or a CLIRP patent. After that probationary term only CLIRP patents would be possible.   What is a CLIRP Patent? A CLIRP Patent confers upon the inventor 50 (fifty) years of profit incentive but not necessarily a monopoly. A CLIRP Patent confers upon the inventor the right to a monopoly only if no one else takes advantage of the "compulsory licensing" system.   How does the "Compulsory Licensing Inventors Revenue Pools System" work?   Synopsis: Companies put pre-set fees into "Inventors Revenue Pools" (annuities) that pay out to the appropriate, participating inventors. The Writers Guild of America's residuals system with binding arbitration would serve as a model.   BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER INTO CLIRP… UNDERSTAND A "POT-ODDS DISINCENTIVE SYSTEM"   I think the entire legal system should apply a "pot-odds disincentive system". The concept comes from the gambling theory of evaluating bets in terms of "positive expectation". That's when the structure of the bet is not in accordance with true odds. For example - If we were betting on the toss of a coin, a bet of a dollar to win a dollar would be considered fair because those are "true odds". If it's heads you win my dollar but if it's tails I win your ten dollars then that would be a positive expectation bet for me and terrible for you. Slightly more complicated: if I were to bet on a single roll of a six-sided die that it would come up "1" and you're betting it will roll anything else ("2", "3", "4", "5" or "6") then betting a dollar to win a dollar is a terrible bet for me and a positive expectation for you. But if I were betting a dollar to win twenty dollars then that becomes a desirable bet for me despite the fact that I will lose 5 times out of 6. Likelihood of winning doesn't necessarily dictate the positive expectation. For a bet to be worthwhile it need only give a greater payoff than the true odds would dictate.   How would this apply to the law? I think when civil judgments are being considered the "pot-odds" concept should be the guide. How much did you steal? What was the likelihood of getting caught? Multiply it out and that's the true odds payout. Then add a premium punishment on top of the true odds. In this way businesses couldn't calculate the value of breaking the law (e.g. illegally dodging taxes while betting on the low likelihood of getting caught or deciding to risk not going public about an unsafe product or even unsafely disposing of toxic waste because the fines aren't prohibitive). By having a pot-odds disincentive system businessmen (rational actors) will always have to "err" on the side of abiding by the law because breaking the law would always have a mathematically unbeatable penalty. ---- OK, back to the specifics of CLIRP… The Specifics of CLIRP   A company that did not invent or otherwise have inherent claim to a particular invention  may still use that invention, without permission from the inventor, so long as it abides by the certain strict rules of the CLIRP System. 1) That company not getting permission from the inventor must set aside the greater of 5% of the price or 10% of the profit of its good or service (by the definition of its business model that most favors the inventor) that will employ that CLIRP Patent in question to go into an "inventors' revenue pool" (IRP). The company would have to agree to "open the books" to independent auditors with a "pot-odds disincentive system"* that would penalize them at a premium above the likelihood of getting caught multiplied by the amount they attempted to improperly exclude from the IRP. This would encourage fair & honest accounting (not "Hollywood Accounting") for the inventors' share. 2) The inventors' revenue pool for that good or service is put in an escrow annuity account (in the safest/most conservative of financial instruments) that is regulated by a newly created branch of the USPTO called the "Inventors Revenue Pools Service". The annuity payments on a given product's IRP account would be distributed as defined by the inventors' relative shares in that IRP.  If your invention were used for 50 years (like the first TV) you would be handsomely rewarded but get a diminishing share of the pool as progress is made on your invention (e.g. maybe a miniscule share for non-tube TVs). 3) Distribution of shares in the IRPs: Every year, annuity payments from a given IRP would be distributed to all the inventors of record for that product. This would be determined initially by the corporation (based on standardized guidelines) but subject to binding arbitration much like the Writers Guild of America's screen-credit arbitration process. A newly created independent authority/organization (Inventors Arbitration Service) would evaluate the merits of inventors' contentions that they deserve a greater share than some other inventor. 4) The standardized guidelines would be established by an expert task force (blue ribbon commission) for each industry. There would be less incentive to "game" this system (compared to the current monopoly/exclusion system) because companies know they have to pay a set amount into the IRP so they shouldn't care as much about how it's split up. The current monopoly system has such vastly, varying extremes of outcomes that litigation is unavoidably a huge part of the game (q.v. the NTP / Blackberry lawsuit). An example of standardized guidelines for a new computer printer might take existing distributions of inventor shares (all necessarily publicly available on the internet) as precedent balanced against the company's (or ultimately the arbitrator's) assessment of the value of the new invention to that particular product. So if the printer previously used 24 CLIRP Patent inventions but now used a new wireless technology then maybe the floor for the new invention would be 4% and the ceiling would be 20% of that IRP. If one invention replaced another then that would be reflected in that inventor's share of that particular IRP. Distributions of IRP annuity payments (i.e. royalties) could be effectively paid to rightful inventors similar to the longstanding residuals process of the Writers Guild of America. 5) Of course, inventors and licensors could voluntarily agree to not use the CLIRP system. They could negotiate flat-fees or other compensation agreements however they see fit. The CLIRP system would only be used in the absence of a voluntary agreement. The CLIRP system prevents the prevention of progress and encourages voluntary agreements that are less burdensome than CLIRP's strict rules.   What are the benefits of the CLIRP system? 1) Encourages innovation with a longer profit cycle without "killing any progress". 2) Better inventions are more likely to be effectively brought to market because CLIRP-enabled competition doesn't bind the inventor to a particular company (a current variable which can only hurt the chances of the best product being best implemented commercially). In the current system, either the new invention is better or worse than what already exists. If it is better and the particular company with the monopoly is anything short of excellent then the chance of the best product prevailing are diminished. On the flip side, if the new product is worse but is superbly marketed then the success of the better product that already existed is therefore diminished in the current patent-monopoly system. This happens all the time with modern pharmaceuticals that need only be proven safe (by FDA's standards) and not necessarily more effective than the existing medications. In the US alone, there are untold billions wasted on new treatments that are demonstrably less-effective than older treatments & medications. 3) This ends the Diophantine-like problem of multiple inventions (variables) being present in particular products where a consumer must choose between product "A" that has inventions 1,2, 5,7,9 and product "B" that has inventions 1,3,4,5,6,8. Because the consumer currently can't isolate which inventions it prefers (because competitors have rival monopolies with their patents) better inventions are unjustly bound to worse ones yielding less-than-meritocratic results. 4) Businesses using the CLIRP system would have a known, quantifiable cost system for invention. This would be excellent for transparent, predictable accounting. 5) CLIRP reduces the risks and costs of lawsuits. There is also a de facto limit to any damages that could potentially arise from infringement. And that limit is already factored into their accounting (because the money has been set aside for the IRP). Potentially aggrieved inventors can only contest their share of an IRP and not prevent use. Business' costs of litigation should drop substantially if not tremendously. No factory would ever shut down over IP concerns. 6) There would be less incentive to develop "me too" technology that only nominally differentiates itself from a previous invention because the arbitrator's decisions about IRP share would be more savvy than a jury's. Consequently, more development would go into genuine breakthroughs that would stand the test of time. Think of 50 years of CLIRP / IRP share revenue for an AIDS vaccine as opposed to developing yet another version of Lipitor. 7) There would be a massive reduction of lawsuits and lessening the burden on the already clogged judicial system because of the new "IAS" arbitration process. 8) Due to the set IRPs, there is an incentive to be collaborative and build upon each other's ideas. An invention can't "make or break" one specific company. Competition would now ensure the best inventions have the best chance of success independent of a specific company. The inventors (and/or companies employing researchers & inventors) would get the maximum revenue directly attributed to the advancement itself (its share of an IRP) and not be unnecessarily tied to a specific company. Consequently, the best ideas can be maximally utilized because the playing field has been better leveled. (Of course the company holding the CLIRP patent would still have some competitive advantage because it would be getting revenue from its own sales plus its share of its competitors' IRPs whereas the competitors would be giving up revenue, in the form of IRP shares, to the CLIRP patent holder. But that is the whole point, to encourage innovation.) 9) Because of the creation of IRPs to be managed and potential IRP share buyouts, the banking sector may be a strong supporter for this proposal.   What are the downsides to the CLIRP system? 1) Trashes precedent and abandons decades of established legal theory (undoubtedly throwing a lot of patent litigators temporarily out of work or maybe into the newly created arbitration system). 2) Unclear how/if business would ultimately embrace/reject the CLIRP Patent system. 3) Creates a new government bureaucracy ("Inventors Revenue Pool Service" within the USPTO) to regulate the potential legion of Inventor Revenue Pools. 4) Creates a huge new bureaucracy of expert arbitrators for the IAS ("Inventors Arbitration Service"). Potentially creates an equally or more contentious situation in the arbitration system.       CONCLUSION:   The discussion and ultimate implementation of the CLIRP system (or something similar) will undoubtedly encourage more innovation than the current system. We stand on the shoulders of giants. We can't possibly climb as high if some shoulders are "off limits". CLIRP enables everyone to innovate and improve while still benefiting from a profit incentive/reward system (which I think is more meritocratic than the current monopoly-patent system).   CRITICISMS & RESPONSES     1) Why an annuity? Why not simply distribute IRPs at the end of every year?   With an annuity the benefits get paid out over many years which serves as a check on short-term gaming of the system and outright theft. If a disreputable company could distribute as it sees fit immediately then there would be little recourse if it were later proven that a particular inventor was wronged. Whereas with an annuity the payouts distributed in a given year would only be a fraction of the total worth which allows for subsequent claims to be fairly addressed. Also, with modern automated online banking, micropayments to many inventors is indeed viable (q.v. paypal or "Google Adsense" payouts to web affiliates).     2)  I invent a printer.  You sell computers and printers.  So you market your product like this: buy a computer, get a printer free.  Your valid accounting books show that printers are a net zero at best and a negative advertising cost at worst.  So you can therefore not pay me anything on my printer invention.  (similar with printer + ink business model).   This is indeed a problem. But it already exists in the current patent system so my CLIRP solution is at least no worse. Also, remember that my solution is such that the pool is based on the entire business model's revenue (including both the computer & printer in terms that most favor the inventor with the burden of proof squarely on the company to disprove the inventor's claims). Or better yet, the blue ribbon commissions could establish reasonable industry-specific standard ways of dealing with this issue of complex business models. Practically speaking, over enough time precedent normally handles the kinks in these kinds of issues.     3) I invent part of a printer.  I make 1/100th of a printer and so do 10 other inventors.  We each make a unique component in a basic way.  The company takes on the challenge of combining the patents together and in the mean time it invents a lot of good ways to combine them, reduce cost, eliminate components, and generally improve the product.  If the printer sells for $100 who is going to decide how much I make?    The company would still make the initial distribution based on blue ribbon commission's guidelines. If an inventor feels aggrieved he can take it up with the arbitration service. This sort of thing happens all the time with the WGA's credit arbitration system and most everyone sees the benefit of it over any other known alternative.     4) Risk vs Reward.  Because this puts the full incentive on the inventor without any risk, it severely punishes the business which tries to monetize the patent.  Say for instance that you invent a printer but the parts wear out in 13 months and the business has to take a huge accounting write off because you failed to test this aspect of the invention.  Are you required to pay back all of your royalties on the printers that are returned?   I disagree that there isn't any risk for the inventor. The inventor puts in time and resources into R&D when the idea is most risky (e.g. it could already be invented, the desired implementation may not be physically possible etc.). And I disagree that it severely punishes the business that tries to monetize the patent.  With CLIRP the business would now have a known cost structure to use the COMPULSORY LICENSING patent. They can and should always first try to negotiate a VOLUNTARY LICENSING agreement on whatever terms are mutually agreeable. The strict requirements of the compulsory situation are actually meant to discourage not making a voluntary agreement. The compulsory licensing aspect only ensures that progress can't be stopped by legal force of the government.   Regarding the business losses, this is an interesting point. I expect the blue ribbon commissions to address this. But my initial thoughts are: 1) Losses could indeed be accounted in some way against revenue for the pool or 2) Losses could also simply be "a cost of doing business" and not used to punish the inventor because the business losses could easily be the fault of numerous people other than the inventor.      5) Simultaneous invention.  This subject is really important in internet patents. As soon as something becomes self evident another flurry of spin off ideas occur as inventions. Typically these involve combining the new concept with other existing concepts in novel ways.  But when one million people use Facebook every hour more than 1 may have the same idea.  Your idea seems to imply that the first one to file the patent can buy the biggest couch and bank account.    This is also a problem already extant in the current system. So again my solution is at least no worse. But my system provides a much better remedy, the IAS (Inventors Arbitration Service). The IAS would be way better at resolving these issues compared to the absurdly expensive and slow court system (q.v. the WGA's successful credit arbitration system).     6) Why have any profit incentive at all? Why not be communists like the "Open Source" movement?   "Open Source" requires that the innovation not be monetized and that revenue can only be earned from "service contracts". This perversely encourages poor innovations that require lots of service (and thus more revenue). This conflict of interest is also antithetical to optimal progress. 7) With the whole new IAS system wouldn't there be more litigation?   I really don't think so. Part of the problem with regular litigation is how absurdly slow it moves. It can take years for a lawsuit to get to court and a decade to finalize. In the meantime progress is stifled and myriad issues become moot. Professional arbitration is much faster, especially when there are specific, predetermined guidelines. Binding arbitration also doesn't have to deal with unlimited appeals (that divert money & resources to the legal community instead of the inventors & businessmen). The WGA's credit arbitration system works very well as a model.   8)  Also, it doesn't seem this system cures the main problem with patents today (in the mind o the patent holders), and that is that Indian and Chinese companies are happy to ignore these patents, and as their industries get more and more capable of producing patented products, the whole patent system stops being so useful. And in 50 years, US purchasing power could be so low that threats of embargo and boycott should be pretty much meaningless. On the whole, I basically agree. But as those countries get richer and if CLIRP indeed makes the legal licensing possible and easier then I think they are more likely to "play by the rules."     9) Wouldn't CLIRP encourage people to throw their own incrementally different patents into the pool, so they can wring profits out of it? Patent for patent's sake, heck if it's useful. Now, if a patent isn't used, it doesn't earn money. Your system would seem to encourage deadbeats, no?   I think you may not appreciate how rampant that disgusting behavior is within the current patent system. Because such patents can get injunctions to stop competitors the incentive is in fact higher in the current system than it would be under CLIRP. Also, I think my system's arbitration service would be considerably better able to handle complicated matters compared to undereducated jurors.     SPECIAL THANKS FOR THE CRITICISMS GO TO: Justine Coates, Marta Almli, Timothy Sharpe, and Chris Robbins.   And thank you, dear reader, for considering this entire proposal. Good karma to you.   Regards,   Dan Abrams   CC: Jim Garrison, Jane C. Ginsburg, Dean Kamen, William M. Landes, Senator Patrick Leahy, Lawrence Lessig, Richard C. Levin, Stephen A. Merrill, Robert P. Merges, Steve Perlman, Richard A. Posner, Mark Webbink. _____________________________________________________________

The Threat Spectrum & Corresponding Solutions / I'm Pro-Assassination

Not sure how original the following is, considering how blatantly obvious it is, but here goes... Preface:  I see this as the safety/security corollary to "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs". Here I describe how human interactions evolve along a spectrum especially in response to threats. Consider this "Threat Spectrum & Corresponding Solutions": 1) "Every Man for Himself" - This is the smallest & most basic end of the spectrum, absent systems of laws & enforcement. In such a situation the strongest/most violent man is in charge. All but one person is in grave danger (and even the strongest can get "unlucky" and die anyway). EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Imminent / Ultra Short-Term / 1 minute to 1 day IDENTIFIED DANGERS: Violent Individuals (especially the strongest) NEEDS MET BY: "resource cannibalization" (stealing from others) EXAMPLES: Prisons of strangers, most riots, first stage of "stranded on a deserted island" SOLUTIONS: Advance on "the spectrum" or "Be Stronger & Kill" or flee  2) "Gang Rule" - As soon as two or more people think to unify to defend against the strongest/most violent man you get the beginning of civilization. The two people have to reach some sort of consensus (even if it's only to kill their common enemy).  In this situation there doesn't necessarily have to be any sort of justice. The strongest man could conceivably be a "benevolent king" and the two people who sought to kill him could themselves be merciless criminals.  As soon as this sort of "teaming-up" happens the strongest/most violent man must realize that he needs to get people on his team. Some sort of system of resource distribution is thus enacted. One person doesn't get "everything".  Trust becomes crucially valuable because if you can't trust someone then it probably isn't worthwhile to team-up with him. Others' perception of credibility (reputation) becomes important. A "code" is created but it need not be regimented (otherwise it could be called a "system of laws"). Consequently, even the strongest/most violent individual has to "internalize restraint" and not do what his every whim demands. He must see the danger in attacking the member of a rival gang. Though he may still do it the prevalence is drastically reduced due to the consequences. EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Less Imminent / Short-Term / 1 day to 1 week IDENTIFIED DANGERS: Violent Groups / Rival Gangs NEEDS MET BY: "resource cannibalization" (stealing from others) EXAMPLES: Ghengis Kahn, The Mafia, Modern American Prisons, Somalia, and the immediate aftermath of most wars/catastrophes SOLUTION: Advance on the spectrum or "join a gang & kill rivals" or flee 3) "Despotism" - Once one gang has established supremacy in a region then that gangleader is, for all intents and purposes, a despot/tyrant. The immediate security/safety of that ruler is more stable and thus his needs move along Maslow's hierarchy. His gang is now called an army. While he still fears losing control (from revolution/coup or rival armies) he must now also worry about generating resources. He can't simply rely on cannibalization of resources (theft) and survive for long because eventually the region will be depleted. In order to incentivize "the people" to generate resources there must be a "system of laws & enforcement". The attendant reduction in crime enables a "Division of Labor" which creates efficiencies/productivity (growing the pie). EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Not Imminent / Medium-Term / 1 week to 1 Year IDENTIFIED DANGERS:  Revolution, Chaos (receding on spectrum), War NEEDS MET BY: "resource cannibalization", some local productivity  EXAMPLES: Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Adolf Hitler, Henry VIII, King Solomon, Baby Doc Duvalier SOLUTION: Advance on the spectrum or assassinate/coup/revolution or flee/emigrate 4) "National Competition" - Once the rival countries reach a reasonable degree of "non-war" (in the form of a "Cold War" or even "Detente") they are de-facto competing against each other in a "survival of the fittest". The countries that evolve & advance necessarily thrive whereas the least productive countries struggle. Previously decimated countries (e.g. Japan after World War II or South Korea after the Korean War) can advance into global economic powers if they are productive enough. Just as with biological evolution the biggest/strongest don't always survive the longest because other skills/traits become more useful. And just like individuals unifying to create gangs against the strongest/most violent person there are countries that create alliances/trade partnerships for varying degrees of mutual benefit. During a Cold War most countries that trade are compelled to take sides on those bilateral lines. Few major players are allowed to be completely neutral. The result is that this competition becomes a referendum on/judgement of the assorted systems of government/economics. The countries that are least productive and/or have the least happy people are deemed to be the "losers" and their constituents seek alternatives/different plans. Whereas the countries that prosper across worthy metrics are envied and thus emulated by other countries. The most effective/desirable policies proliferate and the others whither away. EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Long-Term / 1 Year to 1 Decade IDENTIFIED DANGERS: Economic Depression, International War, Chaos (receding on spectrum) NEEDS MET BY: local productivity, some international trade/productivity EXAMPLES: Western Civilization vs. Everybody Else - The Fall of the Soviet Union, Modern China increasingly adopts most of capitalism, Most wealthy nations progressively provide some "social safety net" (unemployment insurance, food stamps etc.), America finally joins Europe in providing citizens with some sort of "universal healthcare", The 2011 "Arab Spring" SOLUTIONS: Advance on the spectrum, change your country's policies, emigrate 5) "International Cooperation" - Once the rival countries understand the inherent benefits to cooperation/trade they see the value in disarmament/peace. The mere existence of standing armies makes them more likely to be used in inappropriate circumstances.  You've heard the criticism that: "Generals Always Fight the Last War" The tragic modern example is America's fiasco in Iraq. Invading & occupying a country is terribly expensive (in blood & treasure) and, more importantly, it's regularly ineffective and often counter-productive to your aims. War begets war. Increasing one's military substantially beyond what is necessary is necessarily dangerous to oneself. I think it's pretty clear that America's military is vastly too big (perhaps by an order of magnitude). Read this controversial article (about the Pentagon seeing the need to cut its own budget) in Foreign Policy magazine: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/13/the_y_article Worldwide peace takes hold (relatively speaking by historical standards). And the evolution of effective policies proceeds. Due to the lack of an existential threat, what often (erroneously) becomes the number one issue is terrorism. (Note - See my previous blog post about the fact that there is no existential threat to America , written in January 2008: http://corpania.blogspot.com/2008/01/there-is-no-existential-threat-to.html )  I think Terrorism is mostly caused by "Crab Mentality" (summed as "if I can't have it nor should you"). My proof of this is that Bin Laden often spoke of 9/11's economic damage to America.  Evolutionarily, it makes sense to have a crab mentality if you're that much worse off than others. If the game is not giving you a good outcome then you can choose to not play the game (which is not necessarily smart or stupid or good or bad).  The people who benefit the most when the rules of the game are followed have to incentivize the other people to follow those rules. That can be done by punishing rule-breakers or encouraging rule-abiders. The cost of those actions to incentivize are crucial in the policy calculus. If it's more expensive to punish (e.g. cops & prisons) than to reward (e.g. public education) then the ROI comparison should make the decision easy.  (NOTE - If you have a problem with fairness and disregard the practicality then I suggest you read my previous blog post about "Principle vs. Proof vs. Practicality" http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/04/whats-right-whats-productive-what-you.html ) The crab mentality (e.g. terrorism) simply makes it more expensive to not-reward. It's a bit similar to a cliched union employee (knowing he can't get paid more or less for his time) deciding to work less during the hour (thus psychologically giving himself a raise on a per-unit of productivity scale). In order for your policy calculus to work, you may decide to counter the crab mentality with an even greater punishment in an attempt to discourage that negative behavior. But there's a threshold where it not only won't help but it could actually exacerbate the situation for you (e.g. Alcohol Prohibition, Anti-drug laws, Anti-Porn correlates to increased sex crimes, Right wing Israeli administrations bulldozing Palestinian homes leads to Hamas winning elections, Blackwater's killing of unarmed civilians increases IEDs, Gitmo torture aids recruiting of terrorists etc.). OR... The increased costs could change your policy calculus leading you to modify your rules so as to better reward those with with the crab mentality (thus reducing their number or degree of disatisfaction which will result in less negative costs for you). Balance and efficacy are crucial. There are often "unintended consequences" and perverse incentives lead to undesirable outcomes (e.g. previous incarnations of welfare that especially led to vicious cycles). However, the net result is the need to encourage the greatest number of people to be the most productive (not necessarily work the longest) so that there is more "pie" to distribute. EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Virtually None / 1 Decade to 1 Century IDENTIFIED DANGERS: Terrorism, Chaos (receding on spectrum), ??? NEEDS MET BY:  international productivity & trade for great mutual benefit EXAMPLES: 21st Century Western Europe, Japan, USA etc. SOLUTION: Some minimum threshold of prosperity/happiness for everyone and reasonably varying levels of success above that so as to encourage maximum productivity/happiness for the most people. CONCLUSION When you identify threats it is therefore useful to also view them along this spectrum. Terrorists are often at the "gang" stage. So you can deal with them with that stage's solutions. Tyrants are at the "despot" stage. But since both gangs & despots are often led by single rulers, "targeted assassination" becomes a vastly preferred strategy (over the woefully ineffective GWBush strategy of "invasion & occupation").  Compare killing Bin Laden in Pakistan to trying to create order/justice in Afghanistan. This is largely a cost/benefit issue. Assassinating evil rulers is way cheaper & easier (not to mention more just - Why punish the people for the actions of their unelected leaders?). I also think assassination discourages enemies' lines of succession & recruiting ("that leader is clearly not invincible so why join a losing team?"). Whereas invasion & occupation clearly embolden the enemy and encourage enemy recruitment. Also, consider how the new targets in Al Qaeda feel now. They know we want to kill them and have the means to do it. How much can they fortify their location to feel safe? The answer is - They Cant. No amount of money can buy the protection they would need to actually be safe. That feeling of insecurity can't disappear by spending money. However, by changing policy/behavior many of our enemies can get off our "people to kill" list. Their violent leaders gotta die, regardless (q.v. assassination). But the overwhelming majority of their supporters can change their minds and stop fighting which will save them from our list. Look at our new "allies" in the Afghanistan government who used to be (or still are) in the Taliban. Announcing the cessation of hostilities can save their lives. Now flip it around. Do you feel unsafe because of terrorists? Do you think there is an amount you can spend to alleviate that feeling and thus feel safe? What if that amount (in blood & treasure) was actually 10 times your estimate? 100 times? There must be a price that makes it not worth it. Some level of feeling of insecurity may be practically necessary. For example: the population of Israel is 7.4 million people. If terrorists kill 10,000 Israelis a year in the current path but a full-scale, all-out war would kill 1,000,000 Israelis then it's clear that full-scale, all-out war should be avoided. But here's the actual news: terrorists have killed, on average, around 100 Israelis per year since September 2000 (for perspective over six times as many Palestinians have been killed per year and the US Murder Rate is 4x higher than that per-capita. Let me explain it another way: The average American is 4 times more likely to be murdered in America than the average Israeli is likely do die from terrorism). I am certainly not saying the Palestinians are universally good & just and that the Israelis are universally bad. Nearly the opposite. Israel is judged by modern Western standards and the Palestinians are compared to undereducated people in quasi-medieval Arab monarchies. It's unfair. But that's not the real point I'm making. I'm arguing for more practical cost/benefit, risk/reward, ROI-based decision-making. *************************************** SIDE NOTE - Of course there is some overlap of stages in every region. But as you advance along the spectrum the distinctions become more prominent.  *************************************** (FINAL NOTE - I still intend to write a future blog post about how the wealthy should all become "limousine liberals" for their own self-interest.)

Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya but the president is Barack Hussein Obama II

OK, I think I figured out why President Obama didn't release the long form birth certificate until today... His advisers might have been worried that since the long form birth certificate listed his father (who has the same name) as born in Kenya that its release would cause confusion. After all, "Barack Hussein Obama" was indeed born in Kenya. But that person was the president's father. The current president is "Barack Hussein Obama II" ("the second" or "jr.") and President Obama was born in Hawaii. Even so, they could have released it earlier. Though now that the GOP is so married to the "birther" lunacy maybe releasing it now is most effective politically. Maybe Obama is "playing 3-dimensional chess". I hope so. BTW - 51% of GOP primary voters don't believe that President Obama was born in the United States of America. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/romney-and-birthers.html

Switch to The Gold Standard? Part 2-"Ptolemy vs. Copernicus"

"Ptolemy vs. Copernicus" I fear that my friends who are Libertarians/Gold-Standard Lovers are ignoring the links/sources that I've included (in order to have a more productive debate). Consequently, these people are apparently arguing against my points without understanding the established facts & widely accepted assumptions. Part 1 (with its links to NPR podcasts) is here... http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/03/switch-to-gold-standard-but-us-net.html Before I make my personal points, here is another crucial link... http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html >>> Here's an excerpt to get you excited: • "Under a pure gold standard, the government would stand ready to trade dollars for gold at a fixed rate. Under such a monetary rule, it seems the dollar is "as good as gold." Except that it really isn't-- the dollar is only as good as the government's credibility to stick with the standard. If a government can go on a gold standard, it can go off, and historically countries have done exactly that all the time. The fact that speculators know this means that any currency adhering to a gold standard (or, in more modern times, a fixed exchange rate) may be subject to a speculative attack." And here's another great link (from 1996!) http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/goldbug.html Krugman called out Heterodox (fringe) Economist Wanniski on his absurd philosophy -  •"Wanniski regards gold as the appropriate measure of wealth, regardless of the quantity of other goods and services that it can buy." Ok, so assuming you've done your homework and actually read the links above... Here are my own points: 1) Lovers of The Gold Standard are like Ptolemy. Lovers of The Gold Standard are rigid in their belief that gold's value hasn't ever changed and won't ever change. Consequently, when gold prices move these people have to conclude that such movements are actually the result of changes in that currency's value. Here's a quote from one friend of mine making exactly that argument: •"What Corpania sees as gold's wild instability is in fact the accurate reflection of the dollar's wild instability. When gold's dollar price rises, it doesn't mean gold is rising, it means the dollar is falling." Just a reminder - Ptolemy was the 2nd Century astronomer who tracked the movements of stars and wrote his Almagest which attempted to explain their movement in a "geocentric model". You see, you can actually think of the Earth as absolutely stationary & unmoving if you choose to believe that the Sun moves around it. You can construct complex yet flawed and inconsistent explanations for how & why the tiny little Sun moves around the great big Earth. But then you'd be wrong. Once you accept that it makes a lot more sense that the relatively tiny Earth moves around the relatively bigger Sun so much more of the universe is coherent. Gold-Standard Lovers are like the geocentric & wrong Ptolemy whereas Keynesians (like Nixon & Krugman) are like the heliocentric & right Copernicus. 2) Gold-Standard Lovers keep complaining about how "unstable" the US Dollar is but I think they're unrealistic and unappreciative of how amazingly stable the US Dollar has been in the past 40 years. I think you've got to calibrate relative to other currencies (compare "apples to apples"). When you calibrate it relative to other currencies you see that the US Dollar is one of the most stable currencies (part of the reason why it's so widely adopted for pricing internationally). And it's especially stable when you appreciate how much of it is in the hands of non-citizens and thus especially "at the mercy of the market" (i.e. outside of the control of the government). Quit complaining and let's focus on making the pie bigger. 3) If the US got back on the Gold-Standard the demand for gold would necessarily skyrocket. Heck, it has been skyrocketing and would continue skyrocket as we get closer to talking seriously about it! And when demand goes up so must the price. Gold-Standard Lovers must be terrible at game theory if they promote their theories now (when Gold prices are at an all-time high). These people are embarrassingly advocating that the US Government (and by extension all its citizens) become vulnerable to gold investment speculators who would now demand that the fixed price for a US Dollar be set at a very low amount of gold. But it's my guess that these Gold-Standard Lovers are not that stupid and that their behavior is rational because they're not at all altruistic. These Gold-Standard Lovers are virtually all substantially invested in gold (they've already traded dollars for gold) and thus they have a personal & vested interest in increasing gold's price relative to the US Dollar. Because they will ultimately need dollars to buy goods and services, they want as many dollars as possible in exchange for their gold. If we return to The Gold Standard then the Gold-Standard Lovers have the most to gain. Their philosophy becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy! And the only people who get hurt are the suckers (the rest of the US citizenry) who bought their "castle in the air". SIDE NOTE/TANGENT: It's like when the GOP wanted to privatize Social Security which would have instantly driven up the price of the stocks thus giving greater profit to the people who already own investments and thus taking profit from those who would've been compelled to invest. On the flip side, in their desired time-line, when baby-boomers retire there would be greater downside pressure to sell (when a disproportionate number of people would need to sell) thus further punishing the suckers. Thank "god" that that self-fulfilling prophecy got stopped by progressive liberals. 4) I just want to re-hammer Krugman's point that slams Wanniski: Valuing gold for itself and distinctly independent of what it can actually buy is absurd. http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/goldbug.html 5) And I might as well re-hammer Jim Hamiliton's point that also crushes the Gold Standard Lovers: If we were on the gold-standard and went off it and then returned to it, couldn't we just as easily go off of it again? And since we could go off it again, what value is that "promise" macro economically? How does it help Americans? Does it even help the investment community? Except, of course, to those who already own gold? http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html ONE LAST POINT... If you want my solution to the problem of maintaining a currency's value, here it is: http://corpania.blogspot.com/2010/05/universal-value-price-dollar-to-years.html