3 ms·

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"

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...
- Danieru 6y ago
  1. You're basing your argument off celebrity net worth which as I wrote above does not convince me. 2. My comment is about Nathans attempt to white wash his dark history in the public eye. A point you are refusing to address as you pass off IV as not that bad. 3. Comparing IV to old IBM is an insult to inventors everywhere. 4. My narrative is that patent trolling steals from everyone and Nathan is a bad man for creating the world's largest patent troll. Please don't attempt to deflect with tabloid speculation about net worth, it isn't relevant even if the tabloid guessed right.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    1. You're basing all your claims off your opinions, which should convince even less people, now that it's clear you don't accept decent evidence. As to another source, Myhrvold is likely worth less than 2B, else he'd be on the Forbes 400 for 2020. He isn't. In fact, he's also not on their real-time billionaires list, so he's likely not even worth $1B [2]. He's not on any recent lists, from Forbes or Bloomberg, all the way back to around 2000, so it's highly unlikely he is worth more than the $800M above. It's looking pretty solid your beliefs don't match reality. I guess you can claim he has mystical money hiding powers, and Forbes is not a decent source of values, and so on, but I prefer to go on what is reasonably demonstrated. Once we start making up things, then we can believe he's worth $0, or 500 trillion, or eats kittens, or any sort of speculation. While we're on #1, here's [1] a Forbes article on how badly IV has done - I guess you won't accept any of this either since it goes against your beliefs. However, I find Forbes much more trustworthy than a person untethered to demonstrable evidence. Is there any place that makes you think your claims about his worth or the source of it are are true? A single source with defensible values? 2. I didn't need to address it, since it's opinion. The parts you claim as fact don't line up with published sources of info I can find. You so far post none. 3. As a professional inventor, and having done business with both IBM and IV, I'm guessing your claims are again not based on any experience or solid stats, but unfounded opinions. I've found both to be professional and good businesses to work with. I don't view either as good or evil, which is a silly type of judgment - they're both interested in turning ideas into reality. As someone who's been around inventors for decades, around law firms representing them, around startups, again I find the rabid hate some have for IV is the same rabid hate others have/had for MSFT, or Apple, or Comcast, or banking, or restaurants, or farming, or pretty much every single company of any size. All such entities have value, which is why they have customers. It's just that somehow people that either misunderstand the issues involved start detaching from reality and believing whatever suits their narrative. So, given that a significant number of inventors have benefited from both companies, care to define how you concluded a statement about "inventors everywhere"? 4. "Please don't attempt to deflect ..." - you mean "Please don't bother to clarify with facts when I have a narrative I need to be upset with". I was just posting some fairly checkable facts that are opposite what you claim, and since that set you off, I suspect you're not operating on facts. I prefer to get the facts straight before I go on a lynching rampage. Less mistakes that way.... I'm done. You seem wholly uninterested in learning or even looking into reasonable points counter to your solidly formed beliefs. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2018/06/01/after-10-years-nathan-myhrvolds-3-billion-of-private-equity-funds-show-big-losses/?sh=20b316395a9d https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2018/06/01/after-10... [2] https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/

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...

Danieru 6y ago
1. You're basing your argument off celebrity net worth which as I wrote above does not convince me. 2. My comment is about Nathans attempt to white wash his dark history in the public eye. A point you are refusing to address as you pass off IV as not that bad. 3. Comparing IV to old IBM is an insult to inventors everywhere. 4. My narrative is that patent trolling steals from everyone and Nathan is a bad man for creating the world's largest patent troll. Please don't attempt to deflect with tabloid speculation about net worth, it isn't relevant even if the tabloid guessed right.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  1. You're basing all your claims off your opinions, which should convince even less people, now that it's clear you don't accept decent evidence. As to another source, Myhrvold is likely worth less than 2B, else he'd be on the Forbes 400 for 2020. He isn't. In fact, he's also not on their real-time billionaires list, so he's likely not even worth $1B [2]. He's not on any recent lists, from Forbes or Bloomberg, all the way back to around 2000, so it's highly unlikely he is worth more than the $800M above. It's looking pretty solid your beliefs don't match reality. I guess you can claim he has mystical money hiding powers, and Forbes is not a decent source of values, and so on, but I prefer to go on what is reasonably demonstrated. Once we start making up things, then we can believe he's worth $0, or 500 trillion, or eats kittens, or any sort of speculation. While we're on #1, here's [1] a Forbes article on how badly IV has done - I guess you won't accept any of this either since it goes against your beliefs. However, I find Forbes much more trustworthy than a person untethered to demonstrable evidence. Is there any place that makes you think your claims about his worth or the source of it are are true? A single source with defensible values? 2. I didn't need to address it, since it's opinion. The parts you claim as fact don't line up with published sources of info I can find. You so far post none. 3. As a professional inventor, and having done business with both IBM and IV, I'm guessing your claims are again not based on any experience or solid stats, but unfounded opinions. I've found both to be professional and good businesses to work with. I don't view either as good or evil, which is a silly type of judgment - they're both interested in turning ideas into reality. As someone who's been around inventors for decades, around law firms representing them, around startups, again I find the rabid hate some have for IV is the same rabid hate others have/had for MSFT, or Apple, or Comcast, or banking, or restaurants, or farming, or pretty much every single company of any size. All such entities have value, which is why they have customers. It's just that somehow people that either misunderstand the issues involved start detaching from reality and believing whatever suits their narrative. So, given that a significant number of inventors have benefited from both companies, care to define how you concluded a statement about "inventors everywhere"? 4. "Please don't attempt to deflect ..." - you mean "Please don't bother to clarify with facts when I have a narrative I need to be upset with". I was just posting some fairly checkable facts that are opposite what you claim, and since that set you off, I suspect you're not operating on facts. I prefer to get the facts straight before I go on a lynching rampage. Less mistakes that way.... I'm done. You seem wholly uninterested in learning or even looking into reasonable points counter to your solidly formed beliefs. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2018/06/01/after-10-years-nathan-myhrvolds-3-billion-of-private-equity-funds-show-big-losses/?sh=20b316395a9d https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2018/06/01/after-10... [2] https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/