Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

The Roberts Court innovation tax

By | July 9, 2010, 10:15am PDT

Summary: By refusing to do its job there is a Roberts tax on all innovation, payable to the patent bar, until someone can knock heads together there and get them to provide clarity.

By refusing to rule on whether software or business method patents are constitutional in the Bilski case, the Supreme Court under John Roberts has, in effect, taken ownership of an enormous tax on innovation. (Picture from Wikipedia.)

That’s right kids, a tax. Any fee required by government is descried by conservatives as a tax on business.

By refusing to do its job (four wanted to say the patents are no good, one wanted to say they’re good, and four including Roberts opted for a shoulder shrug) there is a Roberts tax on all innovation until someone can knock heads together there and get them to provide clarity.

It’s an unusual tax. It goes to lawyers and law firms, not directly to the government. But the Justices are all lawyers, so maybe that’s no surprise.

How much is the tax? That’s another fun point. We don’t know. You can get hit with it at any time, from any quarter, as in these examples ripped from today’s headlines:

  • Patent troll NTP, the folks who nearly sank the Blackberry, have now sued all the smart phone makers, claiming they invented mobile e-mail. These are the same patents that eventually won NTP a $612 million judgement from RIM.
  • Apple is claiming only it can make a smartphone with an interface that uses two fingers. Its suit against HTC has been expanded, and never mind that Google was working on Android years before the iPhone appeared.
  • Frontier, a phone company, now claims to own all Voice over IP, and has sued Google. This claim of “irreperable harm” came the day its idiot patent was approved, and many years after VOIP became a standard feature. (Russell’s rolling in his grave over that one.)
  • Salesforce.com and Microsoft are suing each other, both claiming to essentially own the cloud. Money is raining on both sides’ counsels.

How bad is it? So bad that Technology Review now says seed and venture funding in software should move abroad en masse to avoid the Roberts tax. Maybe they should.

It’s true that bad cases make bad law, but in this case a good case made no law, because our highest court decided that the bank accounts of patent attorneys were more important than those of the software industry.

Something y’all can discuss while I take a needed weekend off.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Talkback Most Recent of 32 Talkback(s)

  • Wrong as usual
    A fee required by the government and PAYABLE to the government is a tax. A royalty payment is not a tax.

    But, of course, you already knew this. Just like you knew that it requires 4 justices to agree to hear a case before it is picked up by the court, and that Roberts does not sit on a throne, picking and choosing what the court hears.

    But, then, truth to a liberal is like a cross to a vampire.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    frgough
    9th Jul 2010
  • Funny thing about truth...
    The "conservatives" claim that government mandates on insurance is a tax. That money isn't going to the government, it's going to insurance companies, so I'm glad to see you roundly thump conservatives for taking such an idiotic stance. Bravo.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jasonp@...
    9th Jul 2010
  • funny thing about FUD
    @jasonp@...

    Funny, I've never heard ONE conservative say that it's a tax, just that it's unconstitutional for the government to compel a citizen to buy from private companies. Nice try though!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    bclark2008
    9th Jul 2010
  • Hmmmm...
    They have successfully managed to hide these statements on the internet...

    Republican strategist Brad Blakeman - "The president cannot orate himself out of this one. If it feels like a tax
    , it says it's a tax -- Mr. President, it's a tax,"

    WSJ Senior Editor Joe Rago - "Right, this is a mandate disguised as a tax. "

    Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum - "...asserts that such a mandate violates any exercise of Congress's authority under Commerce Clause and its power to levy taxes as well."
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jasonp@...
    9th Jul 2010
  • Witness the withering logic of the typical Obama voter
    who cannot discern the difference between paying a royalty on a voluntary transaction and a state-ordered expenditure.

    Yes, an insurance mandate is the moral equivalent of a tax because what used to be a voluntary transaction has now become state-ordered on penalty of fine or incarceration.

    No, paying royalties on a patent is not a tax because the transaction is a voluntary one between the parties concerned. Unless one party tries to use the patent without paying royalties. Which, in the law, is called theft.

    I tried to use small words.

    Yes, I have run out of patience with fools.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    frgough
    9th Jul 2010
  • ZDNet Gravatar
    Natanael_L
    17th Oct 2010
  • RE: The Roberts Court innovation tax
    @frgough: "unless one party tries to use the patent without paying royalties. Which, in the law, is called theft."

    http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/02/copying-in-patent-law.html

    BTW, it's not called theft, you liar, it's called patent infringement if you use a patented idea.
    Theft is to take something away, but if you use a patent you just add (make) something similiar or identical but without permission.

    Also, not paying royalties is NOT optional. You do it or get sued, just like you either stop at red lights or end up in jail. Just because it might be technically possible to do, it's not a real option.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Natanael_L
    17th Oct 2010
  • RE: The Roberts Court innovation tax
    Roberts Court about it is bank that website attacked from the site support from any soldier site to the light home page is great innovation
    ZDNet Gravatar
    musdahi
    16th Sep
  • RE: The Roberts Court innovation tax
    Four wanted to say the patents are no good, one wanted to say they???re good, and four including Roberts opted for a shoulder a home of google update a site compare with linux a contact site from another big company a website which upgrade always a home page is the best shrug.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Juliety
    1st Nov
  • RE: The Roberts Court innovation tax
    Sure, it's nice to have a good debate on these questions of what is or isn't a tax, but the point of my piece is that the court didn't really tell us anything, which is the job of the Supreme a home of google update a site compare with linux a contact site from another big company a website which upgrade always a home page is the best Court.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    zdnet lover
    4th Nov
  • RE: The Roberts Court innovation tax
    @frgough It's nice to have a good debate on these questions of what is or isn't a tax, but the point of my piece is that the court didn't really tell us anything, which is the job of the Supreme Court.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    9th Jul 2010
  • The whole patent system needs revision
    The problem is that our patent system has not kept pace with the technological advance of our society and needs serious reworking. Many call for patents to be done away with, which is silly, because no one would invest the time and risk in new products and technology if they could be immediately copied. But on the other hand, you have companies like NTP who in my opinion, are the equivalent of cyber-squatters, people who used to buy domain names and hold them for ransom.

    While I think it's OK to criticize the court for this, I prefer to blame the legislators who need to make better law.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jgpeters
    9th Jul 2010
  • RE: The Roberts Court innovation tax
    @jgpeters Part of my problem with what you say is that the legislature did not create software or business method patents. Courts did.

    I agree that the legislature should revisit patent law. Part of the problem is found on my other ZDNet beat, healthcare. Patented compounds or devices are pretty straightforward -- they're not placed inside other things -- so the patent law works well for those industries.

    The EU manages quite well without software patents. Business method patents are something I never understood. Neither seems to promote innovation, and the promotion of innovation should be the test.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    9th Jul 2010
  • Wow what a lame post. youre really trending downhill...
    First this would have been completely out of the scope of the case and the majority opinion recognized that very obvious fundemental fact. An idea isn't a business method.

    Second it's not a tax. No one is required to license any patents, nor obtain any. Any one can make anything unpatentable either inventing it first making it public domain and/or patenting it and making it royalty free. Anyone can acquire anything thats already patented and make it royalty free as well.

    Third it doesnt matter how many people were working on anything for "years before". If they didnt apply for a patent on it or make it publicly available "before" then (they were stupid and) they need to license, find another mechanism, or make something completely independent. It's their choice, there's no government requirement involved.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Johnny Vegas
    9th Jul 2010
  • RE: The Roberts Court innovation tax
    @Johnny Vegas The tax is the cost of litigation in the absence of a clear holding either way. As noted elsewhere in this thread, many conservatives have caused the purchase of health insurance a "tax." If that's a tax, why isn't the requirement for innovators to continually re-litigate because the court won't do its job and tell them what the law means not a tax?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    9th Jul 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources