This is an implementation detail to be argued about to find a fair formula.
I thought your plan was simplifying things and getting lawyers out of it, guess not.
Again, this is a matter of determining a fair mathematical formula that rewards inventors appropriately depending on the amount of sales.
How is a fair mathematical formula determined? Who decides what is appropiate? Are sales the only metric for the formula?
Also, for comparison how does our current patent system ensure that inventors recoup costs on valuable patents?
The inventor licenses the patent for for an agreed upon value. Value is determined by the market.
How does our current patent system reward downstream inventions and ideas?
See above.
You seem to have lofty goals for a new system that our current system doesn’t address.
How are those not addressed?
What patent fees? We’re talking about taxing products / services / corporate profits and then using that money to reward inventors.
Money that goes to patent holders is a patent fee no matter how the money is collected. If a company uses a patented invention but doesn't list it how is that infringement enforced? More lawyers and lawsuits?
Again, implementation detail, but if multiple ideas contribute to the same product then the inventors of both would get rewarded.
Details are the important part, how is the value of one patent determined over another, ie how do they split the revenue.
Inventors getting a percent of sales doesn't is a vague description.
How is the royalty rate determined?
How are cheap to manufacture/replicate inventions handled? With a low royalty rate the inventor may not recoup costs for a valuable patent.
How are products with multiple patents handled?
How are patent fees enforced?
Why would a company publish a patent in your system? They can be 1st to the market and be the only ones in the market until their competitors reverse engineer their patent.
In the current patent system the owner can choose to licenses their patent, they can choose how much licensing should cost and manufacturers can decide to pay it.
You're awfully light on the details of how an inventor is rewarded.
Old knowledge is abundant, new is not. If takes effort to discover/create new knowledge. Patents and copyright are there to allow the inventor/creator an opportunity to monetize their invention.
Streaming services are middle men with exclusivity rights on products. They sell simular but different things, think of them like dealership repair shops, they both fix cars but they fix different cars.
I understand your point just fine. Your goal of protecting people from large corps is met but it doesn't protect people from other people.
If a drunk driver hits you and has half your wealth you're only getting half the value of your car. I doubt very much the 30 day license suspension and points on their license will make up for that.
Restitution only includes reimbursent to get them back to the state before the crime happened. It's just for damages directly caused by the crime. In the case of piracy no direct damage occurs so there would not be $14m in criminal restitution.
As long as restitution is part of the criminal sentencing I'm good with that. The person needs to reimburse the victim for the cost it took to get back to where they were before the crime.
That's a short term view. No team is good in their first few years, minus Brawn. If they entered this year or next they would be able to refine their chassis so they can compete in 2028 when they get GM engines.
The financial argument makes more sense, it's much more difficult to prove that Andretti would grow the business, but with US interest waning it might be the thing that brings people back.
Mercedes and Ferrari didn't have dominate drivers, George's dnfs were a big reason why he was further away from Lewis. 6 pts separated the Ferrari drivers.
I suspect it's like boxers and mma fighters that they are not bound to any rules or doping testing when they are "retired". They get juiced up wait a few months until they test clean and unretire.
Once they are an F1 team is when they start being bound to F1 rules.
When the properties are liquidated I wonder how hard the real estate market in China will fall. The empty city real estate bubble may be getting ready to pop.
I thought your plan was simplifying things and getting lawyers out of it, guess not.
How is a fair mathematical formula determined? Who decides what is appropiate? Are sales the only metric for the formula?
The inventor licenses the patent for for an agreed upon value. Value is determined by the market.
See above.
How are those not addressed?
Money that goes to patent holders is a patent fee no matter how the money is collected. If a company uses a patented invention but doesn't list it how is that infringement enforced? More lawyers and lawsuits?
Details are the important part, how is the value of one patent determined over another, ie how do they split the revenue.