5 ms·

Patent troll!

by pathik 16y ago

Patent troll!

pavlov 16y ago
Alternatively, he's a guy who did a physics PhD when he was 23, did cosmology post-doc studies under Stephen Hawking, founded a software company and sold it to Microsoft when he was 27, and later created Microsoft Research at the ripe age of 31. But maybe that counts for nothing when an emotional topic like patents is involved. Look, an ugly troll, let's throw some rocks!
- drallison 16y ago
  Add to his accomplishments a serious cookbook. http://www.amazon.com/Modernist-Cuisine-Art-Science-Cooking/dp/0982761007/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299255889&sr=8-1-spell http://www.amazon.com/Modernist-Cuisine-Art-Science-Cooking/...
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- bediger 16y ago
  To be fair, the revenue is all from licensing, right? That makes Intellectual Ventures a Non-Practicing Entity, right? I think we can rationally judge Myhrvold to be a troll at this point. We don't need emotional responses.
  - Tycho 16y ago
    But if they were licencing, then their patents were actually being 'practiced,' just not by them, so the net effect is the same. Can you support on one hand the patenting of ideas companies develop while working on a product, but on the other hand complain when those patents are traded to someone else? Further, what about when a company does some difficult research, solves a problem, gets a patent - is that really 'Non-Practicing' ? Some trolls have got no intention of licencing anything, or researching anything, they just launch surprise lawsuits and ignore licencing requests.
    - bediger 16y ago
      First, it's not the patents that don't get practice, it's the entities doing the patenting. If you hld a patent, but don't actually use the technology yourself, you're an NPE, approximately. Second, patent law doesn't have an independent invention excuse. One can invent something, not patent it, and use it for years without running into trouble. A Non-Practicing Entity can get a patent, and sue you into oblivion. How many cases of "patent holder sues 10 tech giants" have you seen in the news? Do you suppose that every one of the 397 companies (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-and-google-jointly-sue-geotag.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-and-google...) sued by GeoTag, Inc. filched the idea behind the patent? Do you suppose that any of those 397 companies copied the idea from GeoTag, Inc's product(s)? Do you think that Intellectual Ventures has any intent of producing product(s) with any of it's large number of patents?
      - Tycho 16y ago
        I don't know, one wonders why GeoTag filed ~400 patents at the exact same time, but the basic idea of an R&D only company that makes money by licencing its discoveries, or even of a company that makes money by buying other peoples patents, seem to be logical extensions of having any agreeance with the patent system. Bad patents, of course, are another matter (or being sued for something you 'invented' - isn't that supposed to be impossible?)
        bediger 16y ago
        Independent invention is definitely not a defense in a patent infringement suit: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=903521 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=903521 That's certainly consistent with the current, US Constitution basis for patents, to encourage general progress by giving a limited monopoly to an inventor. It's not consistent with any kind of "ownership basis" for patents, which gives someone a monopoly on an idea because of the exceptional, very special nature of the invention. If we grant ownership of an idea to someone based on the incredibleness of their invention, then surely an independent inventor deserves the same, or maybe even more, privilege on the idea. Patent cases don't consider whether the alleged infringer "stole"/copied the idea, or thought of it independently. The one study that has been done on this appears to support independent invention in almost all cases: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160
- rbarooah 16y ago
  Smart people can do ugly things.
  - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
    Yep, he's a clever patent troll.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  OK, here's a challenge to you. What has Nathan Myhrvold actually ever created. He didn't make any great contribution to physics or cosmology. His software company made a product that was a clone of another product. Microsoft Research has been a money drain since its inception (having never created a revolutionary advance). And now he runs a company that does nothing but file patents.
  - DuncanIdaho 16y ago
    Seems like he read Putt's law and really took maximum out of it.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Some say one of the best cookbooks ever created. But also they have done some really cool stuff. Like they have this device that uses laser to shoot down individual mosquitoes, but not just any mosquitoe, but uses technology to see how the blood is flowing in the mosqitoe (as its flying through the air) to decide which mosqitoes are carrying malaria, and only shoot those. He also has built a portable refrigeration unit that can store vaccines (and other meds) for long periods of time with no power. Besides the cookbook though, I don't think he's created anything you'd buy at a store. Most of his work is focused on environmental and 3rd world issues.
  - rudiger 16y ago
    This is a tired argument. Why don't we all go and work the fields? Maybe then we can "actually" create something (whatever that means).
  - bitwize 16y ago
    He's an amazing business-model innovator (though probably all credit goes to Jerome Lemelson for the original implementation; too bad Jerry wasn't aware of business-method patents!). Yes, tongue firmly planted in cheek.
    - qohen 16y ago
      Lemelson's story is rather interesting: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-08-21-lemelson-fraud_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-08-21-... Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson#Patents_and_litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson#Patents_and_... (The USA Today link above was a reference from this WP page)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

Patent troll!

by pathik 16y ago

Patent troll!

Alternatively, he's a guy who did a physics PhD when he was 23, did cosmology post-doc studies under Stephen Hawking, founded a software company and sold it to Microsoft when he was 27, and later created Microsoft Research at the ripe age of 31. But maybe that counts for nothing when an emotional topic like patents is involved. Look, an ugly troll, let's throw some rocks!

drallison 16y ago
Add to his accomplishments a serious cookbook. http://www.amazon.com/Modernist-Cuisine-Art-Science-Cooking/dp/0982761007/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299255889&sr=8-1-spell http://www.amazon.com/Modernist-Cuisine-Art-Science-Cooking/...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
bediger 16y ago
To be fair, the revenue is all from licensing, right? That makes Intellectual Ventures a Non-Practicing Entity, right? I think we can rationally judge Myhrvold to be a troll at this point. We don't need emotional responses.
- Tycho 16y ago
  But if they were licencing, then their patents were actually being 'practiced,' just not by them, so the net effect is the same. Can you support on one hand the patenting of ideas companies develop while working on a product, but on the other hand complain when those patents are traded to someone else? Further, what about when a company does some difficult research, solves a problem, gets a patent - is that really 'Non-Practicing' ? Some trolls have got no intention of licencing anything, or researching anything, they just launch surprise lawsuits and ignore licencing requests.
  - bediger 16y ago
    First, it's not the patents that don't get practice, it's the entities doing the patenting. If you hld a patent, but don't actually use the technology yourself, you're an NPE, approximately. Second, patent law doesn't have an independent invention excuse. One can invent something, not patent it, and use it for years without running into trouble. A Non-Practicing Entity can get a patent, and sue you into oblivion. How many cases of "patent holder sues 10 tech giants" have you seen in the news? Do you suppose that every one of the 397 companies (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-and-google-jointly-sue-geotag.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-and-google...) sued by GeoTag, Inc. filched the idea behind the patent? Do you suppose that any of those 397 companies copied the idea from GeoTag, Inc's product(s)? Do you think that Intellectual Ventures has any intent of producing product(s) with any of it's large number of patents?
    - Tycho 16y ago
      I don't know, one wonders why GeoTag filed ~400 patents at the exact same time, but the basic idea of an R&D only company that makes money by licencing its discoveries, or even of a company that makes money by buying other peoples patents, seem to be logical extensions of having any agreeance with the patent system. Bad patents, of course, are another matter (or being sued for something you 'invented' - isn't that supposed to be impossible?)
      - bediger 16y ago
        Independent invention is definitely not a defense in a patent infringement suit: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=903521 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=903521 That's certainly consistent with the current, US Constitution basis for patents, to encourage general progress by giving a limited monopoly to an inventor. It's not consistent with any kind of "ownership basis" for patents, which gives someone a monopoly on an idea because of the exceptional, very special nature of the invention. If we grant ownership of an idea to someone based on the incredibleness of their invention, then surely an independent inventor deserves the same, or maybe even more, privilege on the idea. Patent cases don't consider whether the alleged infringer "stole"/copied the idea, or thought of it independently. The one study that has been done on this appears to support independent invention in almost all cases: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160
rbarooah 16y ago
Smart people can do ugly things.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  Yep, he's a clever patent troll.
TomOfTTB 16y ago
OK, here's a challenge to you. What has Nathan Myhrvold actually ever created. He didn't make any great contribution to physics or cosmology. His software company made a product that was a clone of another product. Microsoft Research has been a money drain since its inception (having never created a revolutionary advance). And now he runs a company that does nothing but file patents.
- DuncanIdaho 16y ago
  Seems like he read Putt's law and really took maximum out of it.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Some say one of the best cookbooks ever created. But also they have done some really cool stuff. Like they have this device that uses laser to shoot down individual mosquitoes, but not just any mosquitoe, but uses technology to see how the blood is flowing in the mosqitoe (as its flying through the air) to decide which mosqitoes are carrying malaria, and only shoot those. He also has built a portable refrigeration unit that can store vaccines (and other meds) for long periods of time with no power. Besides the cookbook though, I don't think he's created anything you'd buy at a store. Most of his work is focused on environmental and 3rd world issues.
- rudiger 16y ago
  This is a tired argument. Why don't we all go and work the fields? Maybe then we can "actually" create something (whatever that means).
- bitwize 16y ago
  He's an amazing business-model innovator (though probably all credit goes to Jerome Lemelson for the original implementation; too bad Jerry wasn't aware of business-method patents!). Yes, tongue firmly planted in cheek.
  - qohen 16y ago
    Lemelson's story is rather interesting: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-08-21-lemelson-fraud_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-08-21-... Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson#Patents_and_litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson#Patents_and_... (The USA Today link above was a reference from this WP page)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]