9 ms·

>I feel a duty to point out the white washing. Nathan made his money on the basis of patent trolling, I feel a duty to point out this "black washing". Nathan m

>I feel a duty to point out the white washing. Nathan made his money on the basis of patent trolling, I feel a duty to point out this "black washing". Nathan made the bulk, if not all, of his fortune at Microsoft. They bought his startup in 1986 for 1.5M in stock. He then went to MS and founded MS research, which has turned out a spectacular amount of good CS research under his leadership. Here's [1] Nathan's worth in 1999, all from MS, at 650M. MS stock went from around 0.10 in 1986 at the purchase to around $40 in 1999, so pretty much all of Nathan's wealth was in MS stock. Today Nathan is worth around 800M, which, inflation adjusted back to 1999, is 200M less than where he was in 1999. [3] Also, Intellectual Ventures is not his - he co-founded it, and now owns around 40%. Also the entire income stream of IV is tiny compared to big patent players at big tech firms. They look to have around a few B in assets, after 20 years of existance. IBM does over 1B a year simply in licensing of it's patent portfolio. Some other big tech firms are similar. So while it's true he founded Intellectual Ventures, it's not at all true that is where he made his money. At best it gives him a place to play with ideas, but a massive money making machine it is not. Don't cast aspersions without checking your claims. [1] https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1011/6409172a.html?sh=6aef841133ef https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1011/6409172a.html?sh=6ae... [2] https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/nathan-myhrvold-net-worth/#:~:text=Nathan%20Myhrvold%20net%20worth%3A%20Nathan,co%2Dfounder%20of%20Intellectual%20Ventures https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/nathan.... [3] https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

remote_phone 6y ago
I don’t care where he made most of his money. I can what he is doing NOW. Patent trolling is sickening and I wish they would simply kill software patents entirely. He is a patent troll so fuck this guy. Also fuck all the other patent trolls, but this guy is a patent troll.
- aptwebapps 6y ago
  Patent trolls suck, but the top comment was just wrong.
na85 6y ago
I feel like this comment really captures the zeitgeist of (and my least favorite part of) this community: worshiping the wealthy. No matter what awful things a tech person does, if that person is a multimillionaire (and male) then I can count on some HN user to defend that parasite with moving goalposts and whataboutisms.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > worshiping the wealthy "Over the years, [Elon Musk] cultivated a media persona that was “part playboy, part space cowboy,” Vance writes. [...] Musk sells himself as a singular mover of mountains and does not like to share credit for his success. At SpaceX, in particular, the engineers “flew into a collective rage every time they caught Musk in the press claiming to have designed the Falcon rocket more or less by himself [...] In fact, Musk depends heavily on people with more technical expertise in rockets and cars, more experience with aeronautics and energy, and perhaps more social grace in managing an organization. Those who survive under Musk tend to be workhorses willing to forgo public acclaim.” [1] “Capital is an abstract parasite, an insatiable vampire and zombie maker; but the living flesh it converts into dead labor is ours, and the zombies it makes are us.” [2] [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/08/04/166593/techs-enduring-great-man-myth/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/08/04/166593/techs-end... [2] Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
  - istorical 6y ago
    There's a big difference between someone like Myhrvold and Musk. Both made their fortunes by being great business leaders who were able to take big risks, rely on the expertise of others, and probably use cult-of-personality tactics. Both probably have big personality redflags. But Myhrvold used his initial fortune to co-found a patent troll corporation. Musk used his initial fortune to accelerate the adoption of sustainable human transport, solar power, battery storage, and space exploration. Does it not seem obvious why some would be willing to accept Musk's faults? Would you rather have Satan help move us 10-20 years closer to saving the earth or tell Satan to fuck off cause he's a dick and let the earth be closer to death?
pavedwalden 6y ago
Point taken, as far as the scale of his theft. Myhrvold is still a villain in my eyes, but OP overstated things.
crispyambulance 6y ago
It doesn't really matter that IV is not the main source of his (or anyone else's wealth). Nor is it really a place to "play with ideas", instead, it is a place where ideas go to die--literally. In addition to filing lawsuits and/or collecting fees, they [IV] sells patents to other trolls who then proceed with lawsuits. It's really appalling that someone so talented would be involved with such a parasitic business. I really can't respect this person at all. He should be called out at every opportunity.
lovecg 6y ago
I don’t understand the downvotes. This reply has a lot of factual information (I certainly learned something) and gets everyone closer to the truth which is what’s important at the end of the day. The original post reads like “a person who got rich through patent trolling is now spending money on cute projects”. The true story is more like “a person who got rich through a startup acquisition and a decade at Microsoft is now investing in patent trolling and spending money on cute projects”. In my mind there’s a big difference.
- Danieru 6y ago
  I'll explain why it's down voted then: everyone knows Nathan used to work at Microsoft but "rich man goes on to make the world much worse to get even more rich" is no better than "man makes the world worse to get rich". Also note now the down voted post contains only one factual number plus a bunch of speculation all in the interests of deflecting. The post assumes Nathan never sold any stock, then assumes Nathan never spent most of his money, then assumes Forbes somehow knows an accurate valuation of a private company. Then after all these assumptions the post still admits the important bit: Nathan started the world's biggest patent troll and is actively involved in extracting rents. Note: I do not buy the speculation that MS is the major source of Nathans current wealth. Nor does it change anything or make patent trolling different. Nathan's founding of Intellectual Ventures caused everyone in the world to get slightly poorer. It is an affront to any inventor or intellectual on this planet. Nathan was militarized a system meant for good into a system of worthless rent extraction. In turn Nathan caused the current patent trolling we see from IBM, that they have more patents does not somehow absolve Nathan, this is the future he says he wanted.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    >Note: I do not buy the speculation that MS is the major source of Nathans current wealth. Any evidence? I just demonstrated he was worth 650M while at MS, and that that amount would be 1B today, yet he's worth 800B. Are you going to claim he spent that 650, then made the next 800M on IV? If so, provide some proof. Handwaving is not proof. Hopefully you can provide more evidence than your initial post, which was clearly all speculation without evidence. It's funny you call mine a bunch of speculation, when your statements are quite a bit more speculative. >Nathan's founding of Intellectual Ventures caused everyone in the world to get slightly poorer. Well, if you're to be believed, it must have made Nathan and investors richer. Maybe you're not using words in the normal usage when you make such absolute claims. >In turn Nathan caused the current patent trolling we see from IBM, Nathan forming a company in 2000 made IBM do patent licensing since it was founded? That is impressive. They've licensed patents since nearly their beginning in 1911. IBM's current licensing push started in the late 1980s/early 1990s, well before IV started. They were not just amassing patents for over a century solely to use themselves. They have been in the patent licensing business for decades [1], likely well before any of us were born. You're making stuff up to suit a narrative. [1] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-prop/heckel-debunking.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-p...
avrionov 6y ago
celebritynetworth is extremely unreliable source of information. Some articles call Mervold a billionaire which more likely. This is a person who had $650M in Microsoft stock. Owns 40% of 800 people corporation [1] and raised $3B capital [2]. Apart from the question about his actual wealth, Intellectual Ventures looks like a business which makes the problems with patents worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2018/06/01/after-10-years-nathan-myhrvolds-3-billion-of-private-equity-funds-show-big-losses/?sh=6b1ce07f5a9d https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2018/06/01/after-10...
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  As a counter I pointed out elsewhere that he is not on Forbes 400, so he's likely worth less than 2.2B, and he's also not on Forbes billionaire list, so he's likely worth under 1B [1]. Which articles are more reliable on net worth than Forbes claim Myhrvold is a billionaire? Do any claim a net worth? I can find none, but you claim some. Please post so we can see. I also decided to look for a more accurate valuation of IV than wikipedia, since it looks like the data there is sourced quite some time ago. Dunn and Bradstreet, who I'd value much more than Wikipedia to assess companies lists IV as 500 employess and 100M annual revenue [2]. For a tech company, if this is the employee count and revenue, then it is not very profitable, so it's quite possible the entire company is not worth billions. This is 40% of the per employee revenue for google, 25% of MSFT, 12% of Facebook, 8% of Netflix, 30% of twitter, etc. If these are the numbers, this is not a very profitable company at all for tech. At any rate, places like DnB and Forbes, who have people tasked to work on this stuff, people with experience and contacts to do such work about as reliably as any public source, I think they are more likely accurate than the speculation in this thread. [1] https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ [2] https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.intellectual_ventures_llc.2928141d2d785b63aa7a4351cabb60b2.html https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.inte...

remote_phone 6y ago

I don’t care where he made most of his money. I can what he is doing NOW. Patent trolling is sickening and I wish they would simply kill software patents entirely. He is a patent troll so fuck this guy. Also fuck all the other patent trolls, but this guy is a patent troll.

aptwebapps 6y ago
Patent trolls suck, but the top comment was just wrong.

na85 6y ago

I feel like this comment really captures the zeitgeist of (and my least favorite part of) this community: worshiping the wealthy. No matter what awful things a tech person does, if that person is a multimillionaire (and male) then I can count on some HN user to defend that parasite with moving goalposts and whataboutisms.

bergstromm466 6y ago
> worshiping the wealthy "Over the years, [Elon Musk] cultivated a media persona that was “part playboy, part space cowboy,” Vance writes. [...] Musk sells himself as a singular mover of mountains and does not like to share credit for his success. At SpaceX, in particular, the engineers “flew into a collective rage every time they caught Musk in the press claiming to have designed the Falcon rocket more or less by himself [...] In fact, Musk depends heavily on people with more technical expertise in rockets and cars, more experience with aeronautics and energy, and perhaps more social grace in managing an organization. Those who survive under Musk tend to be workhorses willing to forgo public acclaim.” [1] “Capital is an abstract parasite, an insatiable vampire and zombie maker; but the living flesh it converts into dead labor is ours, and the zombies it makes are us.” [2] [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/08/04/166593/techs-enduring-great-man-myth/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/08/04/166593/techs-end... [2] Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
- istorical 6y ago
  There's a big difference between someone like Myhrvold and Musk. Both made their fortunes by being great business leaders who were able to take big risks, rely on the expertise of others, and probably use cult-of-personality tactics. Both probably have big personality redflags. But Myhrvold used his initial fortune to co-found a patent troll corporation. Musk used his initial fortune to accelerate the adoption of sustainable human transport, solar power, battery storage, and space exploration. Does it not seem obvious why some would be willing to accept Musk's faults? Would you rather have Satan help move us 10-20 years closer to saving the earth or tell Satan to fuck off cause he's a dick and let the earth be closer to death?

pavedwalden 6y ago

Point taken, as far as the scale of his theft. Myhrvold is still a villain in my eyes, but OP overstated things.

crispyambulance 6y ago

It doesn't really matter that IV is not the main source of his (or anyone else's wealth). Nor is it really a place to "play with ideas", instead, it is a place where ideas go to die--literally. In addition to filing lawsuits and/or collecting fees, they [IV] sells patents to other trolls who then proceed with lawsuits. It's really appalling that someone so talented would be involved with such a parasitic business. I really can't respect this person at all. He should be called out at every opportunity.

lovecg 6y ago

I don’t understand the downvotes. This reply has a lot of factual information (I certainly learned something) and gets everyone closer to the truth which is what’s important at the end of the day. The original post reads like “a person who got rich through patent trolling is now spending money on cute projects”. The true story is more like “a person who got rich through a startup acquisition and a decade at Microsoft is now investing in patent trolling and spending money on cute projects”. In my mind there’s a big difference.

Danieru 6y ago
I'll explain why it's down voted then: everyone knows Nathan used to work at Microsoft but "rich man goes on to make the world much worse to get even more rich" is no better than "man makes the world worse to get rich". Also note now the down voted post contains only one factual number plus a bunch of speculation all in the interests of deflecting. The post assumes Nathan never sold any stock, then assumes Nathan never spent most of his money, then assumes Forbes somehow knows an accurate valuation of a private company. Then after all these assumptions the post still admits the important bit: Nathan started the world's biggest patent troll and is actively involved in extracting rents. Note: I do not buy the speculation that MS is the major source of Nathans current wealth. Nor does it change anything or make patent trolling different. Nathan's founding of Intellectual Ventures caused everyone in the world to get slightly poorer. It is an affront to any inventor or intellectual on this planet. Nathan was militarized a system meant for good into a system of worthless rent extraction. In turn Nathan caused the current patent trolling we see from IBM, that they have more patents does not somehow absolve Nathan, this is the future he says he wanted.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >Note: I do not buy the speculation that MS is the major source of Nathans current wealth. Any evidence? I just demonstrated he was worth 650M while at MS, and that that amount would be 1B today, yet he's worth 800B. Are you going to claim he spent that 650, then made the next 800M on IV? If so, provide some proof. Handwaving is not proof. Hopefully you can provide more evidence than your initial post, which was clearly all speculation without evidence. It's funny you call mine a bunch of speculation, when your statements are quite a bit more speculative. >Nathan's founding of Intellectual Ventures caused everyone in the world to get slightly poorer. Well, if you're to be believed, it must have made Nathan and investors richer. Maybe you're not using words in the normal usage when you make such absolute claims. >In turn Nathan caused the current patent trolling we see from IBM, Nathan forming a company in 2000 made IBM do patent licensing since it was founded? That is impressive. They've licensed patents since nearly their beginning in 1911. IBM's current licensing push started in the late 1980s/early 1990s, well before IV started. They were not just amassing patents for over a century solely to use themselves. They have been in the patent licensing business for decades [1], likely well before any of us were born. You're making stuff up to suit a narrative. [1] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-prop/heckel-debunking.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-p...

avrionov 6y ago

celebritynetworth is extremely unreliable source of information. Some articles call Mervold a billionaire which more likely. This is a person who had $650M in Microsoft stock. Owns 40% of 800 people corporation [1] and raised $3B capital [2]. Apart from the question about his actual wealth, Intellectual Ventures looks like a business which makes the problems with patents worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2018/06/01/after-10-years-nathan-myhrvolds-3-billion-of-private-equity-funds-show-big-losses/?sh=6b1ce07f5a9d https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2018/06/01/after-10...

ChrisLomont 6y ago
As a counter I pointed out elsewhere that he is not on Forbes 400, so he's likely worth less than 2.2B, and he's also not on Forbes billionaire list, so he's likely worth under 1B [1]. Which articles are more reliable on net worth than Forbes claim Myhrvold is a billionaire? Do any claim a net worth? I can find none, but you claim some. Please post so we can see. I also decided to look for a more accurate valuation of IV than wikipedia, since it looks like the data there is sourced quite some time ago. Dunn and Bradstreet, who I'd value much more than Wikipedia to assess companies lists IV as 500 employess and 100M annual revenue [2]. For a tech company, if this is the employee count and revenue, then it is not very profitable, so it's quite possible the entire company is not worth billions. This is 40% of the per employee revenue for google, 25% of MSFT, 12% of Facebook, 8% of Netflix, 30% of twitter, etc. If these are the numbers, this is not a very profitable company at all for tech. At any rate, places like DnB and Forbes, who have people tasked to work on this stuff, people with experience and contacts to do such work about as reliably as any public source, I think they are more likely accurate than the speculation in this thread. [1] https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ [2] https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.intellectual_ventures_llc.2928141d2d785b63aa7a4351cabb60b2.html https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.inte...