Two years ago next week was when I first went public with what I then called "Proposed Amendment XXIX," which I now call "One Percent Ownership of Patents and Copyrights," that is:
Re: Article I Section 8. [8]
The United States shall have one percent (1%) ownership of each and every copyright and patent issued and registered by the United States government. The ownership shall be limited to the pre-tax gross revenues generated by any and all uses of that which is protected by U.S. copyright and patent law, and all such ownership shall be without exception. All revenues earned from such ownership shall be used to fund the free public education guaranteed to citizens by law, with all revenues from patents supporting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education exclusively and all revenues from copyrights supporting either Arts and Humanities education or Physical Education and Health education exclusively according to the general categories that create the revenues (i.e. computer-related patents support computer science education, music copyrights support music arts education, sporting event copyrights support physical education, and so forth).
* * *

What follows is a long excerpt from: http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2011/12/this-deserves-macarthur-genius-award.html It is the part of the commentary that describes "One Percent Ownership of Patents and Copyrights."
* * *


The United States Congress owns the constitutional right “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,” which means: to create and enforce legal protections of intellectual property rights in the forms of registered copyrights and registered patents, and to resolve disputes over such matters through the workings of the U.S. Courts, including the Supreme Court of The United States if necessary. Yet the United States pays itself very meagerly for creating and enforcing such guaranteed legal protections as are derived from U.S. issued copyrights and patents — essentially, no more than very reasonable one-time registration processing fees for legal protections that the U.S. government will guarantee for decades.

What a deal, especially now — more than 224 years after the ink dried at the signing of the Constitution. Compare the technologies of the day in September 1787 to the technologies of the day today in December 2011. Just ponder this: Benjamin Franklin first proved that lightning is electricity when he flew his kite in a storm in 1752, and then invented lightning rods. The electric telegraph was invented in 1787. A whole lot has happened since. Back in 1787, music copyrights only protected against the piracy of printed sheet music, because there were no recording devices then and no broadcast mediums other than live-performance. And back in 1787, printing presses were laborious sheet-fed hand-operated machines, so printing hundreds of copies of something was printing a lot. Today, music copyrights protect against even the piracy that occurs when file sharing downloads happen in the virtual world of the Internet, and in every other imaginable case, too.

So what is fair compensation for the protections granted to intellectual property rights by U.S. copyright and patent law? Is the one-time cost of a registration filing fee fair compensation to the U.S. government for providing a lifetime-plus-50-years copyright protection that is fully guaranteed by the U.S. judicial system? Is the U.S. government being fairly compensated for the patents it protects? These are difficult questions, but mostly because maintaining a past practice always seems fair at first consideration, as in: “We have always done it this way, so why change it now?” Well, now is now, and it is way past time for a change. My claim is: U.S. government guaranteed goods and services deserve a fair compensation. The necessary justification for my proposed Amendment XXIX (29) is as simple as that.

Who pays the one percent (1%)? Understand this: “The United States shall have one percent (1%) ownership of each and every copyright and patent issued and registered by the United States government” means the U.S. automatically gets its share — it actually becomes the full owner of something — whenever a copyright or patent is issued and registered by the U.S. government, and that “something” is a 1% share of whatever is being protected. Furthermore, “The ownership shall be limited to the pre-tax gross revenues generated by any and all uses of that which is protected by U.S. copyright and patent law” means that the U.S. share does not ever first exist as taxable income for any other owner of a copyright or patent — the U.S. share is paid directly from the gross revenues to the U.S. as its share, as if the U.S. were a principal partner in a business venture. A failure to give the U.S. its rightful share of the gross revenues would be fraud and would have serious legal consequences according to both contract and criminal law.

But Know This: No one is obligated, compelled, or coerced to ever get a U.S. copyright or a U.S. patent except by a personal desire to protect their own self-interest in the best way possible to their greatest advantage. According to my proposed amendment, the cost of that protection should be granting 1% ownership to the United States of that which is being protected. If that cost is too high, then whoever created or invented a piece of intellectual property can choose of their own free will to leave that property unprotected in the American marketplace. In that case, the intellectual property could be stolen outright by someone else and reproduced for profit, and the original creator or inventor could possibly have no legal recourse whatsoever if that which was stolen was not a physical object of some sort. That means an intellectual property thief could legally buy an unprotected product, then reverse engineer it, and then manufacture and sell it for profit — and do so legally without any risk of penalty. That is the risk. That is the possible loss and forfeiture suffered by choosing to not grant the United States a 1% ownership as fair compensation for U.S. government protection of intellectual property rights in the form of a U.S. copyright or a U.S. patent.

It is important to know that there are no exceptions, even U.S. copyrights and U.S. patents held by foreigners, including foreign corporations, are subject to the requirement of granting 1% ownership to the United States. If an issued and registered U.S. copyright or U.S. patent is sold from one person/corporation to another in part or in whole, the United States still maintains its 1% ownership without change. In fact, the United States cannot sell, forfeit, or cancel its 1% ownership under any circumstance, because the United States is We The People.

The school funding portion of the proposed amendment is based in the fundamental aspect of a Biblical tithe, in that a blessing has its source. My contentions are these: 1) American education contributes to American success; 2) American schools foster American creativity; 3) American teachers deserve the opportunity to do their best work with the best resources available; 4) saying “thank you” never hurt anyone, and sometimes those words inspire greatness; and 5) my formula for revenue distribution can be trusted to withstand bureaucratic tampering. The spiritual guidance of “being blessed to be a blessing” applies — of giving back by passing forward the gift.

Not every creator and not every inventor is so spiritual and giving as I suggest, and many such people certainly hated school with every fiber of their being. Even so … even so … I too hated school. But hope must spring eternal in this one respect, despite all. Why? By my observation, we have thus far proven ourselves to be failures as a nation regarding the funding and the purpose of public education, and what I propose might be our last best chance to get it right. That is an arrogant statement, but it is wholly correct nonetheless. America simply must put public education as its highest priority if it wants to maintain itself as a great nation.

The principal awareness — the guiding light — must be this: America’s greatest natural and national resources — indeed, the very treasure of the land — are its best and brightest students, its young geniuses, those whose potentials are truly surpassing. No gold mine, no oil field, and no vastness of untapped mineral deposit compares in value to the potentials of our best young minds. Yet we throw those potentials to the feckless winds of fate as if the seeds can be counted on to sprout of their own accord no matter where they might land.

The public school funding that would be accomplished by my proposed Amendment XXIX (29), is enormous and staggering — almost beyond measure. Remember, the United States would claim one percent (1%) ownership of annual revenue numbers like these:
Dedicated to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education:
U.S. prescription sales (2008) = $291 billion
Source: http://www.imshealth.com/portal/sit...nVCM10000071812ca2RCRD&vgnextfmt=default
U.S. computer software industry (2010) = $240 billion
Source: http://www.hoovers.com/industry/computer-software/1121-1.html
U.S. computer hardware market (2008) = $60.6 billion
Source: http://expresatec.net/computer-hard...store-enterprise-market-reserach-report/
U.S. chemicals industry (2010) = $700 billion
Source: http://www.hoovers.com/industry/chemical-manufacturing/1085-1.html

Do the math: Already almost $1.3 trillion x 1% = $13 billion
In 2007-08, there were 132,656 elementary and secondary schools in the United States (K-12 in total), 98,916 that were public schools and 33,740 that were private schools.
Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_005.asp
Rough math: $13 billion / 100,000 public schools = $130,000 per school per year for STEM education only … and we are still counting! Just consider annual mobile phone sales; and home appliance and TV sales; and automobile and truck sales; and heavy equipment sales; and military defense contract sales; and patented seed sales; and medical devices sales; and medical diagnostic equipment and surgery supply sales; and recreational vehicle, equipment, and gun sales; and … Consider that the 2010 revenues at Boeing Co. totaled $64.3 billion, and probably ever dollar of that was directly related to sales of patented products. Source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=BA:US
Certainly, the per school per year funding for STEM education only will approximate at least $260,000, which will pay for five teacher salaries averaging $52,000 per year.

But those “rough math” numbers go into the stratosphere when appropriate factoring is done. For example, I will use my local public school district (Eugene School District 4J in Oregon) as a general case model. 4J has two “K-5” (6-year) elementary schools feed into one “6-8” (3-year) middle school, and two “6-8” (3-year) middle schools feed into one “9-12” (4-year) high school. Therefore, the elementary schools and the middle schools in 4J are weighted equivalents when “per student per year” factoring is done. That is: a 375-student 6-year elementary school (62.5 students per grade) equals a 375-student 3-year (125 students per grade) middle school, when the basic unit is a school. But a 1000-student 4-year (250 students per grade) high school is different. Doing the math using the 4J model to establish weighted equivalent factors finds that each elementary and middle school has a 0.723 factor and each high school has a 2.666 factor when weighted school allotments are calculated.

Therefore, if $260,000 is the per school K-12 non-weighted allotment dedicated solely to STEM education, then the weighted allotments according to the previous paragraph’s math approximate to $187,833 for each elementary and middle school and $693,000 for each high school. At the high school level, that equals eleven teaching positions dedicated solely to STEM education paying an average salary of $63,000 per year.

For various reasons, I would choose a weighted per school allotment on a national elementary/middle/high-school averaging with perhaps two distinct levels (rural/town and urban/city) over a strict per student allotment. I think “weighted per school” allotments would encourage schools of a certain size if it was done wisely, and schools of a certain size are generally thought to be better.

Also, I would allow for “banking of 10%” for up to five years to fund building improvement projects related to a particular category. For example, STEM allotments that were banked could pay for the construction or upgrading of science laboratories at our public high schools. In the 4J example, $693,000 x 10% = $69,300, and $69,300 x 5 = $346,500. I think a very fine science laboratory could be built and equipped for $346,500.

The money for public education funding generated by my proposed Amendment XXIX (29) from U.S. copyrights is not as great as that from U.S. patents in my estimation, but the amounts are still staggering. Consider these numbers:
U.S. Video Game Industry (2010) = $18.58 billion
U.S. Music Industry (2008) = $10.4 billion
U.S. Movie Industry (2010) = $10.57 billion
U.S. Book Industry (2007) = $35.69 billion
U.S. DVD Industry (recent) = $23 billion
Sources: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
Those numbers add up to $98.24 billion, which means a $982.4 million yearly funding for U.S. public schools if my proposed amendment were ratified.

In the realm of Arts and Humanities funding, school districts might choose to hire a specialist teacher that might be shared by several schools (for example, a band teacher). Or it could happen that the nation would elect to spend a certain portion of the funding to create Internet-based learning experiences that could be used by anyone, including homeschoolers and students who attend private schools. I think it would be wise to fund K-12 Internet-based learning experiences wherever that is reasonably possible.

Consider every bit of rerun TV programming is generating copyright-protected revenues, and so too is every TV broadcast of sporting event, including college sports, professional sports, and the Olympics, and those TV sports broadcasting contracts are enormous!

Think it all through, and do not be stupid in your thinking.

My proposal exclusively funds K-12 free public education. However, if citizens wisely kept current school-supporting taxations in place, much of those public tax monies could be redirected from funding K-12 education to funding public community college and public university education, meaning current college and university tuitions could be slashed. The implications and ramifications and outcomes and surprises hidden in my proposed Amendment XXIX (29) are enormous, and the justifications for doing what I propose are wholly fair and reasonable.

God bless America.

Steven A. Sylwester
December 12, 2011
* * *

What follows is the impassioned FURTHER COMMENTARY that my oldest daughter convinced me to not include two years ago. She thought it was too much and not necessary, and that it spoke only to a smaller audience and not to the general audience. Even though it was the very guts of my motivation, I reluctantly agreed to hold my passion silent until a future time and place was the right time and place.

It is likely that some readers here do not believe in God, but it a certainty that all readers here will appreciate my passion.

FURTHER COMMENTARY

We are fools, even too often beyond the measure of utter — beyond where forgiveness is possible.

Ask yourself: If God gave you Isaac Newton, what would you do with him?

In America, we would mainstream him with slow learners and functional illiterates — even with hostile and mean dullards — in order to socialize him, and we would do our best to ignore his outstanding qualities — his extraordinary potentials — while finding ways to encourage his mediocre qualities — his normalcy. We would drive him to sadness and despair, even to forsaking his own abilities, and then we would graduate him and wish him well while congratulating ourselves for being so egalitarian in our desire to treat everyone as equals. God help us! Unfortunately, I am not overstating my claim.

If I could give America all the money it would ever need for public education, would America find the courage to treat Isaac Newton as a gift from God? That is my question. And my hope is that the answer to that question is “Yes.”

What does that mean? Just this: On November 23, 2010, I wrote a letter to President Barack Obama in which I concluded:
“…In my thinking, the basic National Education Standards should be: Every Child 21st-Century-Literate at No Less Than Grade Level While Being Actively Challenged and Fully Facilitated to Achieve Personal Potentials in All Core Academics. At the top end where NAPS exists, the National Education Standards should be simply this: Students Must Be Advanced to the Academic Level at Which They Can Succeed While Being Challenged. …”
The whole letter can be read at: http://school-usa-proposal.blogspot.com/2011/06/nasa-academy-of-physical-sciences-naps.html

Those two “National Education Standards” taken together state everything that needs to be done, with just one necessary clarification: the U.S. commitment to free public education for its citizens should be a whatever-can-be-done-with-the-top-of-the-sky-as-the-limit 13-year commitment from age 5 through age 18, not a defined standard-curriculum-accomplished from kindergarten through grade 12 commitment as is now more-or-less the case. That is asking a lot on my part, but it is truly only answering “Yes” to my question: “If I could give America all the money it would ever need for public education, would America find the courage to treat Isaac Newton as a gift from God?” I believe when God gives America a gift, America should maximize that gift’s full potential as if the very gates of heaven could be opened wide as a result.

I offer three detailed plans describing what should be done in U.S. public high schools at: http://school-usa-proposal.blogspot.com/ My solutions are thorough and complete, so they are necessarily long enough. Read them start to finish, and then make them better if you can. A careful reader will plainly see that I care about the needs of all students, not just the needs of the best and brightest. My basic contentions can be reduced to this: Not everyone is equally gifted with the same potentials, so the needs of all are best served through stratified learning opportunities that are based on actual proven ability, with accelerated intensive learning opportunities being provided to all those who are able to thrive under that rigor.

The simple inescapable horrible truth is this: Any student — that is, any Isaac Newton — who is fully able to thrive under the rigor of accelerated intensive learning opportunities who is not being given those opportunities is being held back, is being unfairly denied his/her potential, and is being essentially flunked by an educational system that is geared to serve the average student. It is an outrage. Worse, it is a tragedy. Worse, it is an insult to God who entrusted us with the supreme gift of an Isaac Newton.

* * *

Steven A. Sylwester