Vetoed Intellectual Property Exclusion Act

[Darklander]

CONGRESS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
​

---

A BILL TO

Exclude certain intellectual property as being defined as assets for corporate and financial purposes
​

---

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

​

PART I - PRELIMINARIES

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Intellectual Property Exclusion Act.'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by Avaneesh2008.
(4) This Act has been sponsored by Representative TrueDarklander.
(5) This Act has been cosponsored by Senator Ally La Blanca

2 - Reasons
(1) In the Vanguard Crisis, it was seen that many companies added intellectual properties to their balance sheets and filings, but when it came time to liquidate or sell off those companies, they refused to sell websites or Discord bots

(2) Redmont has no, nor should it have, power to force people to give up certain real-life property in a video game. However, it shouldn't be used as a way to jack up valuations without any consequences

3 - Definitions
(1) Real Life Intellectual Property - Any Intellectual Property or Assets that cannot be transferred to another player or entity due to real-life factors. This includes websites, Discord bots, etc

PART II - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

(1) Real Life Intellectual Property Exclusion

(a) Any legal entity as defined by the Legal Entity Act or subsequent acts, as well as any registered financial institution, may not state Real Life Intellectual Property as an asset as part of any corporate filings, valuations, stock listings, or similar filing or document for any reason
(b)Such property may be listed in these filings as a way to give more context, but in no way shall these notes be written in a way to be interpreted as it being part of the company’s valuation

(c) All Real Life Intellectual Property is treated as if it were a permanent part of the player it is owned by unless properly transferred through real life legal means

(d) All Real Life Intellectual Property may not be forcibly transferred to another individual or entity in any way, including but not limited to court cases, asset seizures, bankruptcies, etc

(e) All Real Life Intellectual Property may not be considered an asset or a possession of the player in any way, including court cases, asset seizures, bankruptcies, etc.

(2) Exceptions

(a) Real Life Intellectual Property may exceptionally be added to the balance sheet of a legal entity and their filings in the case that the filings are prepared in accordance with one of the following accounting standards, at the election of the legal entity:

(b) US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP);

(c) International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS); or

(d) Accounting Standards for Private Enterprises (ASPE).

(e) This Exception must be explicitly requested and accepted by the relevant regulators

 

[Rorroh]

This feels like it should be inherently understood. It just makes sense.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Veto

PRESIDENTIAL VETO
​

---

The Intellectual Property Exclusion Act forbids any legal entity or financial institution from stating real-life intellectual property, such as websites and Discord bots, as an asset in any filing or valuation; deems such property a permanent part of the player who owns it; puts it beyond the reach of any court, seizure or bankruptcy; and then lets it back onto the balance sheet where the filings follow US GAAP, IFRS or ASPE and a regulator agrees. The problem it answers is real. In the Vanguard Crisis companies were valued on assets that could not be sold when the time came to sell them, and the people who bought on those valuations paid for it. But the answer has to be a text that works, and this one does not. I veto it.

---

(1) The definition contradicts its own examples. Real Life Intellectual Property is property that "cannot be transferred to another player or entity due to real-life factors", and the Bill then says this includes websites and Discord bots. Websites and bots change hands in this Commonwealth by handing over a domain, a repository or a token; I have received some myself. Whether an asset can be transferred is a question of fact, and the definition answers it both ways.

(2) Section 1(c) and section 1(e) cannot both be law. The first treats the property as a permanent part of the player who owns it. The second says it may not be considered a possession of that player in any way.

(3) The exception restores the mischief. Section 2 lets the property back onto the balance sheet under accounting standards that largely forbid capitalising home-built software, that no one in Redmont can audit, and before a regulator the Bill does not name. Because sections 1(d) and 1(e) still apply, the asset so listed still cannot be reached by a creditor. A balance sheet carrying value that no creditor can touch is the Vanguard Crisis with an accounting label.

(4) It protects the wrong party. A player who sells a website for in-game money and keeps it has, under section 1(e), sold nothing a court may consider. The buyer has no remedy, and the conduct section 2(1) of the Reasons complains of becomes lawful.

(5) It amends nothing and enforces nothing. It overrides the Bankruptcy Act, the courts' power of seizure and the asset seizure warrants of the Judicial Standards Act by implication, touches none of them, and attaches no consequence to a filing that breaks it.

---

What I would sign.

A single rule: an asset that cannot be transferred within the game may be disclosed in a filing but may not be counted toward valuation, capital, solvency or the estate in bankruptcy; a contract to transfer such an asset is enforceable in damages; and a filing that counts it is a false filing under the law that governs the entity. That is three sentences, and they belong in the Act that governs corporate reporting rather than beside it.

---

My thanks to Avaneesh2008 for authoring this Bill, to Representative TrueDarklander for sponsoring it, and to Senator Ally La Blanca for co-sponsoring it.

Accordingly, I veto this Bill, and it is returned to Congress.

Theory Fontaine
30th President of the Commonwealth of Redmont
​