| 11/27/2006 | Australia | We agree with the recommendations made by AEG |
| 10/10/2006 | Sweden | Agreement with proposal |
| 9/15/2006 | United Kingdom | If R&D is not treated as capital formation, but as current activity leading to the "discovery" of intellectual property, then payment for the use of intellectual property protected by patent should be treated as property income as in the current SNA 1993, and not as payments for a service. |
| 9/15/2006 | Latvia | After deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the
1993 SNA Update Issues. |
| 7/28/2006 | Lithuania | In general we support the recommendations. |
| 12/1/2005 | Israel | We agree with the recommendations of the AEG. |
| 9/30/2004 | Lesotho - Central Bank | In the system patented entities are treated as non-produced intangible assets. However, payments received from patent users are by convention recorded as output of services similar to rentals from lease of fixed assets. This is contrary to other non-produced assets such as land. Should R&D costs and the original derived from it be linked or capitalized separately? Furthermore. how should originals be valued and what types of price indexes should be used to deflate the output of services from patented entities?
Comment: This should be changed and payments from patented entities must be indexed to EPS. |
