First of all you have moved away from my post to an old post that used technology as a patent product (most of your post is about technology patents, I am not interested in this). The products I am trying develop are themselves developed in part by the government when they set the regulations and technical papers. In finance regulations have to be adhered to and depending on what criteria is set in the regulations products can be given more freedom to operate. I will give you an example in the United Kingdom the Self Invested Pension Plan or SIPP was introduced in the early 1990s to enable private pension schemes to be operated as individual funds rather than the existing private pension scheme, which is an insurance policy. This new development opened up the architecture of private pension schemes and allowed a greater level of flexibility. Changing the regulations is one thing and governments are necessary to do this, but being involved in the patenting, regulation and enforcement process of the products development and operation are another thing and this can be commercialised internationally. Say for example someone makes a massive breakthrough that allows operations to perform more efficiently, they have developed a new system or product that can resolve a problem or make a process more cost effective than it was before. This is attractive to the global economy and becomes a free market product around the world if marketed. Just a new formula or new process that can be used in the existing governmental market or free market can revolutionise an industry and the economy. Government approval is needed for a new industry and new regulations have to be set up. The government is already involved in this process but is not getting any of the revenue, unless it charges tax. But why charge tax when you can only get that revenue in your own nation. If the government becomes involved in the patenting, regulation and enforcement process it can justifiably get revenue from the joint business venture it entered with the product developer. Revenue is generated not just in the domestic economy but from free trade around the world.
You are looking at this as a process of investment and return. Instead it is more of a process of authorisation, development and enforcement. The products I am developing take very little investment to generate a return, they simply make processes already in production more efficient or produce new processes/intellectual products that can be used and commissions can be charged when this happens. If I can develop a new way of producing a product or providing a service that is more cost efficient than the product or process already in use I can make a profit from the savings it makes. If this process can be used by other countries around the world I can patent it and get a commission when it used. The other nations gain the cost efficiencies of the new process or product and I get a commission. However to be able to provide this product I need the government's authority and if they can enforce the products use and commission payments then I would be willing to share the revenue as a joint business venture. The government has become a business partner with an innovation developer to get the product into the market place. Many of these innovations are easy to develop. I am not trying to build a railway, the railway has already been built. I am not trying to get a share of the private sector. I am trying to make the governmental processes and products more efficient. If I can make governmental processes and operations more cost efficient in one country, other countries will want the cost efficiencies too. So if I can patent these innovation and efficiency processes or techniques they can be licensed and sold to other countries around the world. The revenue is from outside of the country so it is now an international free market operation, no taxation is required to generate the revenue. When it comes to new industries, especially when it is intellectual developments, governmental authorisation and regulatory framework is required to enable new operations. It is not so much a question of whether the product is command or free market but who owns the intellectual property rights to charge a commission. You are thinking who owns the railway, I am thinking I can develop a new software package that can make the train timetables operate more efficiently saving both fuel and waiting times. The software package can be patented and sold to all of the railways in the world and generate an income. Here is the problem I need the authority of the government to set up the regulation of the new procedures for train travel and passenger travel that make the timetable and software package possible. I also want a business partner to pay for the patents and to act as the enforcer for the commission payments. It doesn't matter if the railway is in the public or private sector. The only thing that matters is whether I can optimise the train travel process to make it more efficient and cost effective. The software is the intellectual aspect of the whole process that makes the product possible and can generate a commission from its use. Now think if this new business operation can make the train travelling process more cost efficient in one country, say by 15% per year, year in year out and you can get a tenth of the savings. That is 1.5% of the revenue that the railway charges each year, every year, but that is just in your own country. The ownership whether public or private has stayed the same, you have just made it more efficient but you needed the government's authorisation to do it. You can approach the government to offer the product in exchange for a cut of the profits and then sell the product globally to generate external revenue, everything is more efficient.
These "joint business ventures" as you call them are also called State Subsidies and sometimes State Owned Enterprises - they take many forms like direct cash payments, equity ownership, loans, and tax credits and are the subject of WTO sanctions for unfair subsidies and State sanctioned gate-keeping. As such, these products are subject to countervailing duties to offset the subsidies and gate-keeping. No free lunch. It's Econ 101 that government assistance for products and services distorts the free flow of goods.
In the United States, this is the role of Venture Capitalists and Private Equity Funds. And they have proven over and over again that they are much more adept at identifying opportunities and managing the considerable financial risk as compared to any Government entity. I guess that is a huge strength for American enterprise: people are willing to risk huge amounts of their own money for ideas they feel strongly about. Your thesis that government could and should do this is wrong on so many levels. The internet was a spec drawn up by DARPA using industry input and bid out. The GPS was a spec drawn up by DARPA using industry input and bid out. And at some point in time, when capabilities get superseded by newer technologies the US DoD allowed the propriety of the idea to go public. It's pretty safe to say that most of the World's 7.8 billion inhabitants have better lives either directly or indirectly due to the internet and GPS. Should the US be taxing every user a fee?
This is very far away from what I am trying to achieve. I think you should read my above post again at the point where it discusses the railway and the timetable software package. The issue of ownership is irrelevant it doesn't matter whether it is private or public sector ownership and raising capital through the private or public sector is irrelevant too. What matters is who has the best ability to get a new innovation or process patented, regulated, into the market and then enforced to receive payments. It is not ownership of the enterprise that I am after it is ownership of the right to use a new innovation or product that can make massive efficiencies that I would get a cut of, if I allow the business to use it. I am after developing new innovations and processes that can save massive amounts of money from reducing fuel costs, waiting times, money borrowing times, energy times, labour hours, material use, factory space etc. I think I can develop these new innovations and I want to allow businesses all over the world to use them for a cut of the money it saves them. I need to get patents and other intellectual ownership rights to be able to market the new ideas, I will also need to enforce the patented work (which is an intellectual product). I feel that the government, which has control of authorisation of new developments and regulatory bodies, is the best business partner I can get to patent, regulate and enforce my work. I am happy to give the government a cut of the profits I make from my free market product in exchange for them paying for the patents, setting up the regulator and enforcing the commission payments. Many of the products that can be developed to make efficiencies are government products or services so I can directly do a deal with the domestic government. Then I can work with the government to market the new innovations to other countries that can also get the same savings and efficiencies from using them. The product that is being sold is not the huge investments or ownerships of businesses but the ownership and right use intellectual patents that allow efficiencies saving percentages of a businesses' profits annually. All of your comments are about start up capital and business ownership, this has already been done. I want to make advancements in operations and optimise usage efficiencies. I want to reduce waste and use time more effectively. I want to patent it and share it with the world for a price. I want the government to allow me to do this and I am willing to share the profits!
I am not trying to raise capital or start a business, I am trying to make advancements in innovation and get control of the intellectual property market. I feel governments who have control of the authorisation and regulation of products are better at this than the free market and in most cases a necessary part of the process to be able to produce new advancements in the first place. They also have a good ability to enforce the commission payment process of product use, especially internationally. In this market there is no getting round the government easily, but you can take advantage of their ability to help get ownership rights of your intellectual product and their enforcement powers to make sure you get paid. In terms of the innovation market and making efficiencies that save money the government is a good business partner. Many of the products that are inefficient are governmental operations anyway. Most of the innovations that would be offered would make the government's own products and services more efficient and save money. This is the majority of the market, the inefficiencies of the current governmental business operations and developing cost saving techniques that the public sector can take advantage of. If you can develop something that makes the government's expenditure operations less expensive then you can save them money. It would be worth them giving you a cut of the savings if you can give them a product or process that can deliver efficiencies. Then you can sell the techniques to other countries, everywhere becomes efficient and everyone makes money. This is the cheap, easy and smart way to make money.
I am not interested in business entities. I am interested in innovation, intellectual ownership rights, cost efficiencies and commissions for use. It is irrelevant to me if a business entity is public sector or private sector as long as it can become more efficient there is potential to get a cut of savings I can make them by allowing them to use my new breakthrough in thinking or innovation.
If you truly have legitimate, completely original and patentable IP then spending £90 for the application, £180 for a UK office search, and £130 for a substantive examination would be far and away your best and your first move - especially if you want leverage to negotiate user fees and to license the IP. My sense is that you are well aware that you cannot patent business methods and that getting a patent on software and apps can be a very complex and uncertain affair. Maybe you need the government to push through what is at present an unpatentable abstract idea.