http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/0 ... on_ra.html
"The authors call for perpetually open auctions, quadratic voting, a kind of apprenticeship system for the private sponsorship of immigrants, a ban on mutual fund diversification within sectors (to preserve competition by limiting joint ownership), and creating more explicit markets in personal data. If nothing else, it will force you to clarify what you actually like about markets, or don’t, and what you actually like about economics, or don’t."
The perpetually open auction is a Georgist strategy that applies to all property in their end game but it focuses on land and IP. Basically, you are forced each year to specify a value for a piece of property you hold such that if someone offers you that amount of money you would be forced to sell it. You are taxed on the value of that asset at that price each year. The idea there is patents and land in particular, but exclusionary asset ownership in general, are sources of great wealth accumulation that may never be through normal market forces aligned to best productive use. There is no real distinction between a home owner in Manhattan and a patent troll sitting on a prime patent other coders would like to use - and holding those assets costs nothing relative to their actual value if a sale were forced. They think the real gains on this strategy are so large you could fund something like $20k/per household in "asset dividend" after you collect those taxes and redistribute them.
It's interesting to think about. Lots of impracticalities, but some element of truth as well. It strikes me as a very good approach to maximizing IP. The assumed liquidity of homestead is just not real talk, but I appreciate the effort.