LinuxLingam wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 06:58 am, you wrote:
>> LinuxLingam wrote:
>>> why is software not yet taxed for excise?
>>
>> Sorry, my last reply talked about *customs* on Software.
>>
>> Software is not taxed for excise because of a very simple
>> reason. Software is a service, not a product. Only products
>> that are _produced_ may be taxed for excise.
>
> wow! yet when it comes to marketing, all software companies
> like to talk officially in terms of their software products.
2 different meanings of the word "produced".
> i wonder if the new budget announcements on service tax brings
> software in its domain. is software taxed as a services
> currently?
The _earnings_ on sale of software is taxed by Corporate Tax, and the
actual _sale_ of software is taxed by Sales Tax(es). The
_manufacture_ of software is not taxed by Excise.
>> Writing software is like a CA doing books, or an Architect
>> making plans. Service, not Product.
>
> you've just put your hand into a madhumakhi ka cchaajja.
> a CA does not copyright the formula for a financial formula,
He can, and most of the larger accounting firms do. Try walking into
Earnst & Young, or the Indian equivalent, and walking off with their
manuals. These are copyrighted, and strongly defended, including
restrictive contracts on future employment. These contracts are
legal.
> locks everyone else from using it, makes the formula a trade
> secret,
See above. You may claim trade secret protection not only for your
formulas, but even for your customer list.
> and ensures everyone writes their accounts books their
> way,
No, they specifically insist that I do not write it their way ;-) Not
without paying them arm, leg, and other body parts.
> and pay them a royalty each time,
If I use it, I pay them a royalty. Ask your CA. He calls it Opinion
Fees.
> and also ensure by using
> the formula, they consent to their books being accessed by the
> CA for any purpose.
My Auditors, Earnst & Young, agreed to be our auditors _only_ if they
could see my books at any time. Their report would have no meaning
unless they demanded this.
> an architect does not copyright the concept of a 'window' to
> every house, since humans have demanded shelter but a need to
> see the outdoors and let in some sunshine. thus every house
> that uses a window.... you get the picture.
No. Architects have copyrighted, and succesfully defended, _designs_
of windows. A "window" may be patentable, or not, but is not
copy-rightable. A "design of a window", or its expression (drooping
sunshade, painted pink), is copyrightable. Very much. Try building a
replica of the Bahai Temple and see how far you get.
> so it seems, even the idea of applying a service tax is not
> entirely appropriate in such a copyright+license ecosystem.
> because the distinction between service and product is blurred.
> and the intangible, as well as the implicit aspects are much
> higher.
The difference is blurred, and getting muddier. This has everything
to with "logic", and nothing to do with "law". There is no sensible
reason that we drive on the left, and not on the right, yet I would
not care to challange that in court. Laws have to consistent,
understandable, and applicable. They do not have to be moral or
"right".
LL, please to submit a 400-word paper, distinguishing:
copyright
patent
trade secret
trade/service mark
You may refer to:
http://www.benedict.com/info/registration/what.asp
to start with.
--
Sanjeev Guota
================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header.
Check archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org
