4 ms·

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 Myhrvol

by 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
      - Tycho 16y ago
        I thought you meant 'original' inventor, not just independant invention. Also it makes sense that most cases would point to independant invention, as if a business stole it they'd have every reason to believe they'd get caught... maybe. My point is that if independant invention was a successful defence then perhaps 'everyone' would use it and most patents wouldn't work at all.

by bediger 16y ago

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
    - Tycho 16y ago
      I thought you meant 'original' inventor, not just independant invention. Also it makes sense that most cases would point to independant invention, as if a business stole it they'd have every reason to believe they'd get caught... maybe. My point is that if independant invention was a successful defence then perhaps 'everyone' would use it and most patents wouldn't work at all.