4 ms·

Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures arms HTC with big patent trove

9 points by Flemlord 16y ago

Flemlord 16y ago
What a creepy Godfather-esque move. HTC is buying protection from Myhrvold because they're getting shaken down by Apple.
- raganwald 16y ago
  I dispute the "shaken down by Apple" suggestion. Apple is a company that actually spends money on R&D and actually makes its money selling products based on its R&D. The patent system is fatally flawed, but Apple at least is playing the game in the exact spirit in which the laws were conceived: To give companies a temporary monopoly as an incentive to bring new products to market. Neither HTC nor Intellectual Ventures are acting in the same spirit.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    >but Apple at least is playing the game in the exact spirit in which the laws were conceived The patent system was conceived to allow the little guy (or little business) to invent, and profit from those inventions, even when he lacked the means or scale of manufacture to reliably profit from that invention. Without such protection obviously there was no way that someone who invented a new method to harness energy from gasoline, for instance, could avoid getting crushed by an established car company: He would have close to zero leverage in such a transaction, and there was little to prevent them from simply saying "thanks". Honestly I suspect that if companies above some threshold were barred from filing patents, it would have no impact at all on their R&D spend. It might even improve efficiencies as they stop focusing on trying to land grab with hundreds of trivial patents (which is sadly what most patents are now, where offenders accidentally offend simply in the course of building things because overlap is unavoidable). There is nothing, whatsoever, morally different between patent trolls and a company like Apple. They are both playing the same game to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else. As the old saying goes, however, don't hate the players, hate the game, so kudos to Apple for doing what they can to ensure that $4 billion + of profit enriches their account every quarter.
    - theBobMcCormick 16y ago
      That's a good point. People are so used to thinking of Apple as the underdog that I don't think it's hit everyone yet that Apple is now the 800 pound Gorilla. They're the new Microsoft, but with more style and panache. :-)
    - raganwald 16y ago
      Look, I explained what I thought the patent system was designed to do. You explain a completely different thing. If I'm wrong about my underlying premise, I'm wrong and I appreciate the correction. I'll look into it. But when you say that my argument is "absurdity that borders on embarrassing," you take an otherwise interesting discussion and ruin it with ad hominems. I can't find the strength to get into anything further on the topic. Good day to you, sir.
      - ergo98 16y ago
        As downtrodden and abused as you might pretend to feel, claiming that I resorted to an ad hominem is quite fallacious: My comment was specifically and only about the argument (which was a variation of the "Apple is always the inventor" theme that is so popular among a few), not about the speaker. It is, quite literally, the exact opposite of which you claim. Though the image of you putting on your top hat and adjusting your monocle was delightful. I pray that you haven't succumbed to the vapors. Patents (which trace back to Venice circa 1474) were always were protections for individual inventors and creators. The "everyone churn out patents for the company to lay a monster landclaim --- just take what you find and add "with a computer" or "with a touchscreen" and we're golden", with patent ownership reverting to the corporate entity, is an altogether recent concept.
        raganwald 16y ago
        So now you're telling me that I'm pretending to feel things? I am laying aside my top hat and reaching for a glove to lay across your cheek with some vigor. Matters like this must be settled with swords, not pens.
jaysonelliot 16y ago
Myhrvold's approach to IP really disturbs me. The intent of patents was to protect the time and money an individual or company put into invention, not to stifle innovation by locking away every trivial notion behind a licensing fee.
- celoyd 16y ago
  What really gets me about it is that Myhrvold himself is such a brilliant and pleasant guy, and he gets such cool people to work for him. I feel like he should know better than to take this sort of robber-baronial approach to intellectual property.
- tzs 16y ago
  Yes, something needs to be done about allowing trivial things to be patented. However, for non-trivial things, there's nothing wrong with Myhrvold's approach. For those things IV itself develops, the patent system is doing just what it was intended to do--they put money into development, with the intent of using patent licensing fees to get that investment back and make a profit. Hence, it encourages the progress of the useful arts. Same goes for patents they buy. There are many people who are able to invent something, and do the R&D to show that it will work, but do not have the skill or resources to set up manufacturing. In this case, what IV provides is a market that allows people who can invent but can't set up manufacturing to connect with those who can set up manufacturing but need inventions to manufacture.

9 points by Flemlord 16y ago

What a creepy Godfather-esque move. HTC is buying protection from Myhrvold because they're getting shaken down by Apple.

raganwald 16y ago
I dispute the "shaken down by Apple" suggestion. Apple is a company that actually spends money on R&D and actually makes its money selling products based on its R&D. The patent system is fatally flawed, but Apple at least is playing the game in the exact spirit in which the laws were conceived: To give companies a temporary monopoly as an incentive to bring new products to market. Neither HTC nor Intellectual Ventures are acting in the same spirit.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >but Apple at least is playing the game in the exact spirit in which the laws were conceived The patent system was conceived to allow the little guy (or little business) to invent, and profit from those inventions, even when he lacked the means or scale of manufacture to reliably profit from that invention. Without such protection obviously there was no way that someone who invented a new method to harness energy from gasoline, for instance, could avoid getting crushed by an established car company: He would have close to zero leverage in such a transaction, and there was little to prevent them from simply saying "thanks". Honestly I suspect that if companies above some threshold were barred from filing patents, it would have no impact at all on their R&D spend. It might even improve efficiencies as they stop focusing on trying to land grab with hundreds of trivial patents (which is sadly what most patents are now, where offenders accidentally offend simply in the course of building things because overlap is unavoidable). There is nothing, whatsoever, morally different between patent trolls and a company like Apple. They are both playing the same game to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else. As the old saying goes, however, don't hate the players, hate the game, so kudos to Apple for doing what they can to ensure that $4 billion + of profit enriches their account every quarter.
  - theBobMcCormick 16y ago
    That's a good point. People are so used to thinking of Apple as the underdog that I don't think it's hit everyone yet that Apple is now the 800 pound Gorilla. They're the new Microsoft, but with more style and panache. :-)
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Look, I explained what I thought the patent system was designed to do. You explain a completely different thing. If I'm wrong about my underlying premise, I'm wrong and I appreciate the correction. I'll look into it. But when you say that my argument is "absurdity that borders on embarrassing," you take an otherwise interesting discussion and ruin it with ad hominems. I can't find the strength to get into anything further on the topic. Good day to you, sir.
    - ergo98 16y ago
      As downtrodden and abused as you might pretend to feel, claiming that I resorted to an ad hominem is quite fallacious: My comment was specifically and only about the argument (which was a variation of the "Apple is always the inventor" theme that is so popular among a few), not about the speaker. It is, quite literally, the exact opposite of which you claim. Though the image of you putting on your top hat and adjusting your monocle was delightful. I pray that you haven't succumbed to the vapors. Patents (which trace back to Venice circa 1474) were always were protections for individual inventors and creators. The "everyone churn out patents for the company to lay a monster landclaim --- just take what you find and add "with a computer" or "with a touchscreen" and we're golden", with patent ownership reverting to the corporate entity, is an altogether recent concept.
      - raganwald 16y ago
        So now you're telling me that I'm pretending to feel things? I am laying aside my top hat and reaching for a glove to lay across your cheek with some vigor. Matters like this must be settled with swords, not pens.

jaysonelliot 16y ago

Myhrvold's approach to IP really disturbs me. The intent of patents was to protect the time and money an individual or company put into invention, not to stifle innovation by locking away every trivial notion behind a licensing fee.

celoyd 16y ago
What really gets me about it is that Myhrvold himself is such a brilliant and pleasant guy, and he gets such cool people to work for him. I feel like he should know better than to take this sort of robber-baronial approach to intellectual property.
tzs 16y ago
Yes, something needs to be done about allowing trivial things to be patented. However, for non-trivial things, there's nothing wrong with Myhrvold's approach. For those things IV itself develops, the patent system is doing just what it was intended to do--they put money into development, with the intent of using patent licensing fees to get that investment back and make a profit. Hence, it encourages the progress of the useful arts. Same goes for patents they buy. There are many people who are able to invent something, and do the R&D to show that it will work, but do not have the skill or resources to set up manufacturing. In this case, what IV provides is a market that allows people who can invent but can't set up manufacturing to connect with those who can set up manufacturing but need inventions to manufacture.