[salawat]

Roger that. By the way, we factored that tax burden into the license fee so you can utilize the covered device/process, so in actuality, we the patent holder, aren't paying the tax, you the licensee are. Our accountants, if they were yours, would advise you to pass the cost onto your customers.

That money never comes out of the top level legal fictions. It's always the consumer.

[bediger4000]

I'm not sure that line of reasoning works. If the consumer pays, the patented or patent-using product costs more, and the consumer gets to choose. As it stands, all we citizens and taxpayers pay the cost of patent enforcement. I don't get to choose to pay or not for a particular patent enforcement. I would if the cost of enforcement showed up in product price. Let the market decide.

[salawat]

The market is deciding. You just basically agreed with me without realizing you did. The consumer, in buying a covered device must pay the cost for it's production. That cost is set as a function of cost to acquire patent * markup by the patent holder to license out the patent to parties looking to produce it. If an extra tax or fee is implemented to "punish" Non-practicing entities that just hold onto patent portfolios to license, you haven't solved the problem, you've just made it slightly riskier. The cost of that punitive fee will get rolled into the cost to license the patent. That cost will then be passed on by the licensee in terms of price to the consumer/next link in the chain.

The consumer will bear the burden. Either in higher end prices, or less patented things actually being made because "the market" (read: bunch of guys in suits at investment banks) decided the profitability wasn't where they wanted it.

The invisible hand has an effective address these days, in case you didn't notice.