9 ms·

Do you know him? Honesty I don't have a huge amount of information about his other dealings, but I think there is a genuine case for what he is trying to do wi

Do you know him? Honesty I don't have a huge amount of information about his other dealings, but I think there is a genuine case for what he is trying to do with IV, even if you disagree with with methods. With me and my company, he has been a man of tremendous character and generosity. I daresay you and most others are prejudging the situation. In error. Keep in mind, I am no fan of the patent system either. http://daniellefong.com/2010/02/11/how-law-shapes-the-business-landscape-and-a-patent-puzzle/ http://daniellefong.com/2010/02/11/how-law-shapes-the-busine...

cabalamat 13y ago
> Do you know him? I didn't know Adolf Hitler, but I know enough of him to know that he wasn't a nice person. Patent trolling is a legal form of extortion. It is evil. Myhrvold is an evil man.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Calling Myhrvold 'evil' and putting himself in the same context as Hitler is absurd. One is a businessman whose tactics you disapprove of and consider to be unethical, the other instigated the murder of millions of people, over and above the casualties of the numerous wars that he started.
  - erikpukinskis 13y ago
    I agree the Hitler comparison is absurd, but I think the whole "I'm gonna patent this obvious concept, not do anything with it, and then sue everyone who comes up with the idea independently while actually making an attempt to solve the problem in practice" is sort of evil.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      It's the unfortunate logical conclusion of our private property philosophy applied to intellectual capital. I'd like to see some sort of 'use it or lose it' clause enshrined at the core of property law, but obviously that approach could bring its own problems.
      - kvb 13y ago
        Well, with real property there are things like adverse possession [1]. This isn't exactly "use it or lose it", but it does contain the idea that if rights aren't exercised there may be implicit acquiescence to another's actions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
      - kazagistar 13y ago
        Something being legal does not make it any less immoral.
  - sambeau 13y ago
    cabalamat didn't put Myhrvold in the same context as Hitler, you did. He made two distinct statements that you somehow connected. 1) I have not met Hitler but I know him to have been not a nice man 2) I believe Patent Trolling to be evil and therefore those that perpetrate it to also be evil. Personally I cannot disagree with either statement. Excusing any evil practice as 'a businessman whose tactics you disapprove of and consider to be unethical' is also wrong in my opinion. The world of business hides too many organisations (and therefore people) guilty of profound immorality. It has become an unfortunate part of our culture that we so often forgive them as 'just business'. Capitalism, as a whole, rarely scrapes above amoral. The word 'evil' has an ancient meaning that doesn't only include mass murder and it certainly includes extortion.
    - gruseom 13y ago
      cabalamat didn't put Myhrvold in the same context as Hitler What? That's exactly what he did.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I don't think you understand what context means. Who brought Hitler into the conversation, and why?
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    The point of a comparison matters. "I didn't know Aaron Swartz personally, but I know enough of him to think he was a good guy." is making exactly same point. Also, "One is a businessman whose tactics you disapprove of and consider to be unethical," the other was a politician whose tactics I disapprove of and consider to be unethical. Gotta love euphemisms that turn everything into nothing, and applying them selectively.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      You seem to be saying that extorting millions of dollars from business competitors, even if legal, is on the same moral plane as murdering millions of people. The legality issue matters a bit, insofar as a potential competitor has notice that such business risks may occur, and can plan for them economically before entering the market, whereas people don't reasonably expect to be rounded up and sent off to concentration camps fitted with gas chambers as a matter of course. But the more important point is that I don't consider business dealings, however harsh or unethical, to be on the same moral plane as genocide.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  Godwin's Law strikes again.
  - sadfafda 13y ago
    It never fails, a guy mentioning Godwin's Law. It has almost become like a law...
gruseom 13y ago
They make deals where they sell patents to East Texas shell companies but keep 90% of the proceeds from their shakedown lawsuits. That's what This American Life uncovered recently—they looked at just one (laughably illegitimate) patent, and found that hundreds of millions of dollars had been extracted using that one alone. I don't know how you could listen to that and not find the case devastating. If the broadcast was unfair, I'd very much like to hear the rebuttal. All TAL did was follow up on the example that IV themselves had given as exemplary of what they do, and it turned out to be shockingly unjust. So I do think most people here would disagree with their methods.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  For those who are interested: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/w... http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...
- DaniFong 13y ago
  This is a good point, but far from complete. It is not like they are rolling in the proceeds. Word on the street is that the IV funds are not profitable yet. Also, inventors, who they purchase patents from, are in fact getting checks in the mail. So at least one of the following are true: - They are paying inventors (patent holders) too much - Nobody should pay inventors at all - They should be more aggressive in acquiring settlements / awards in court. - They should shut down completely. - They should cut overhead. Of the above, cutting overhead seems most reasonable. But there are significant activities in their invention lab. They have the world's most advanced malaria modeling system. They are developing a cold chain for vaccines with an incredibly clever thermo-mechanically activated cold finger for control. They are pushing metamaterials. They have an incredibly cool mosquito calming project. They run invention dinners where amazingly brilliant, cool people attack novel problems in novel ways. And TerraPower could, if they are successful, crack the energy problem. Cutting overhead would hurt most of the incredibly commendable activities that they are doing. It takes big bucks to run an invention lab. This isn't the only way, of course. But I'm calling it when I see it: IV is making honest efforts to invent and commercialize a series of amazing inventions, including those in the physical world. Almost nobody else is doing this today. They are funding inventors -- their own and outside inventors, through what many believe are questionable methods exploiting legal loopholes, but are in fact often direclty in keeping with the intent of an admittedly archaic and outdated system. And they're being scapegoated not because they might be a patent troll, but because they are a publicly identifiable organization with public inventions and activities, and public advocacy. And it's a damned shame that we are so clannish that the are ready to, without thinking, without the requisite knowledge, damn one of the only truly ambitious efforts in physical invention, and great hacker, simply because we do not understand, do not approve of, or are uncomfortable with, the systems that are being used to support invention.
staunch 13y ago
He may be a nice enough guy, but how can you possibly justify what he does with IV? I doubt he's an evil person, but what he does with patents is very plainly evil.
- DaniFong 13y ago
  In his own words: "The patent system exists to give economic incentive to create inventions -- not products. After all, profit is the incentive to create and sell products. In order to have a level playing field, inventors must have a full set of rights, regardless of whether they are big or little, or whether they make products or just invent. Those rights are what give them the incentive to work long and hard on new ideas that may not work. A lot of big innovative companies agree with this -- companies like DuPont, GE, Qualcomm and 3M, as well as the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, have filed amicus briefs in support of MercExchange and equal rights for all inventors." "Perhaps the biggest myth is the danger "patent trolls" -- people who supposedly manipulate the patent system in a shady way. It does happen, but apart from some anecdotes, no evidence has been offered that patent trolls are a major problem. Court records show that only 2% of all patent lawsuits are due to plaintiffs that have no ongoing product business. Of that 2%, the vast majority are perfectly legitimate companies or universities. A tiny minority of patent suits are due to bad actors, but it's hardly a crisis. While I was at Microsoft, we encountered a couple of patent manipulators, but frankly we won those cases; at worst they were a nuisance." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114368437650611883.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114368437650611883.html I think that on the balance IV in actual operation strives to create a good working environment for inventors and invention. I think that the invention session s that they holds and the work they do to commercialize is in fact a significant, genuine positive. I think they are actually trying to do good, and are a net plus within the existing system. That said, I think the existing system has long outlived its usefulness. I think, today, it is a net negative. The biggest problems: overhead, unclear rights, patents that should never have been granted, the assumption of validity, thickets, and injunction as the primary right. That, and the fact that it is difficult to willingly give one's inventions to the public. But I have come around on much. In previous eras, I gave the honor to those who could create products and companies around their inventions. Ideas were cheap, I would say. In fact, it takes immense determination to legitimately reduce an idea to practice -- the intended goal of a disclosure in the patent system. Through immense effort I have learned the ropes, learning to found companies and manage them, raise money, find markets, plan, recruit and manage commercialization and manufacturing. I might only get 10 - 20% of my time to invent. It is absurd that we ask all of our inventors to do this simply to make a buck. For every one of me there would be dozens who either couldn't, or shouldn't have to. In private discussions with Nathan, he is well aware -- more than I -- of the limitations in the patent system. Nonetheless, within that system, he is trying to do a good thing. I do not call this evil. My own company has essentially had its strategy forced upon us. We have applied for nearly 80 patents, at great expense of time and money, to defend ourselves from other companies. We had a great many ideas. Eventually, several multi-billion dollar organizations became interested in a few ideas we had patented. Each would be worth a huge amount to their organization if the product was successful. Should we not license the patent because the patent system is "evil?" Occasionally the system actually fulfills its stated purpose. Intellectual ventures buys intellectual property, often directly from inventors. It sells particular chunks to interested buyers. In one, highly controversial "peacekeeping" tactic, IV buys and assembles bundles of packets, to destory packet thickets and get "live ammo" out of the play. They then license the bundles to large organizations, like Microsoft, Cisco, Apple. The big guys; selling them the closest form of freedom to operate that exists in todays world. Is this evil? I think not. At the end of the day, through IV's actions, inventors get checks in the mail, large corporations get more freedom to operate, lawsuits that might have existed are defused, and some of the ideas that make the giant tech megacorps so profitable are actually paid for, to some extent, to their originators and appraisers. That is how the system is supposed to work. It might be that the system has so much collateral damage that all these activities are a net negative. But let us not begrudge IV their intent. If actors are legally trying to do good within a flawed system, and in the process doing more harm than good, it is a flaw of the system more than the actor. I basically think they've taken the flak for being a "patent troll" simply because they were a prominent target. They are scapegoating, without good judgement. In fact, I believe IV is, at worst, misguided and large enough that missteps cause devastation out of line snd proportion to their intent, and at best, genuinely working to usher in a new age of private invention.
jingo 13y ago
"Do you know him?" How does that matter? Maybe the issue the commenter is raising is not personal. Maybe it has nothing to do with personalities or generosity. Maybe he is raising the issue of IV's business model: further exploiting a broken system. Some might opine that such exploitation is not a good thing, and we should not condone it let alone support it. We can all make solid returns from patent trolling with very little risk. Seriously. The money is great. The USPTO is not going to fix the problems any time soon. Does that mean we should all be working on patent troll "businesses"? Should we be doing all our business through shell corporations with PO Boxes in Eastern Texas? What if I could guarantee you a reasonable return? Would you invest in my patent trolling business? Why did Myrvold have to use his own money to start IV? Did he not want to take outside investment? Or maybe there was some other reason? I'm not sure what you think he and Detmer are trying to do with IV. I think they're trying to make money as a tax collector on innovation. More power to them. The system allows this. It's all legal. However, I can't quite see how the taxes innovators must pay to IV are adding any value. At best, they are paying for protection (nevermind why they should need such protection in the first place). Educate me. What am I missing?
- DaniFong 13y ago
  As for whether knowing him matters, the question is not whether you know him personally, but whether you actually understand what he does or is trying to do. Honestly I think most people who pay judgement do not, but it is too painful to see otherwise sane members of the HN community scapegoating someone without knowledge. TerraPower is one of the most courageous and exciting approaches in technology today. It is absurd to think it is being done for PR purposes. --- See my reply to Staunch as how I see it. One response to your phrase: "Tax collector on innovation." I think the concept at issue here is whether or not invention -- the creation of an idea and how to actual execute it -- is worth anything versus innovation -- brining a new concept to market. Having been involved in both, it does seem invention is massively short changed versus innovation. I disagree somewhat with the methods. But the complete view of it would be that IV is trying to collect taxes from rulers, innovators, and all out copiers, and pay the inventors. --- They actually do pay inventors. Possibly too much. Word on the street is that they are not profitable. Or possibly the overhead is too high. Or perhaps they are simply not as aggressive as people might imagine.
ghshephard 13y ago
How on earth can you defend Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures? If there was a single venture that I thought was completely indefensible, it was IV. "Genius" is not the word that comes to my mind, "Patent Trolling and extrapolating money out of productive members of society" is. He may be a nice person, but IV is doing very bad things. Sometimes it does matter how you make your money.

cabalamat 13y ago

> Do you know him? I didn't know Adolf Hitler, but I know enough of him to know that he wasn't a nice person. Patent trolling is a legal form of extortion. It is evil. Myhrvold is an evil man.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Calling Myhrvold 'evil' and putting himself in the same context as Hitler is absurd. One is a businessman whose tactics you disapprove of and consider to be unethical, the other instigated the murder of millions of people, over and above the casualties of the numerous wars that he started.
- erikpukinskis 13y ago
  I agree the Hitler comparison is absurd, but I think the whole "I'm gonna patent this obvious concept, not do anything with it, and then sue everyone who comes up with the idea independently while actually making an attempt to solve the problem in practice" is sort of evil.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    It's the unfortunate logical conclusion of our private property philosophy applied to intellectual capital. I'd like to see some sort of 'use it or lose it' clause enshrined at the core of property law, but obviously that approach could bring its own problems.
    - kvb 13y ago
      Well, with real property there are things like adverse possession [1]. This isn't exactly "use it or lose it", but it does contain the idea that if rights aren't exercised there may be implicit acquiescence to another's actions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
    - kazagistar 13y ago
      Something being legal does not make it any less immoral.
- sambeau 13y ago
  cabalamat didn't put Myhrvold in the same context as Hitler, you did. He made two distinct statements that you somehow connected. 1) I have not met Hitler but I know him to have been not a nice man 2) I believe Patent Trolling to be evil and therefore those that perpetrate it to also be evil. Personally I cannot disagree with either statement. Excusing any evil practice as 'a businessman whose tactics you disapprove of and consider to be unethical' is also wrong in my opinion. The world of business hides too many organisations (and therefore people) guilty of profound immorality. It has become an unfortunate part of our culture that we so often forgive them as 'just business'. Capitalism, as a whole, rarely scrapes above amoral. The word 'evil' has an ancient meaning that doesn't only include mass murder and it certainly includes extortion.
  - gruseom 13y ago
    cabalamat didn't put Myhrvold in the same context as Hitler What? That's exactly what he did.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I don't think you understand what context means. Who brought Hitler into the conversation, and why?
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  The point of a comparison matters. "I didn't know Aaron Swartz personally, but I know enough of him to think he was a good guy." is making exactly same point. Also, "One is a businessman whose tactics you disapprove of and consider to be unethical," the other was a politician whose tactics I disapprove of and consider to be unethical. Gotta love euphemisms that turn everything into nothing, and applying them selectively.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    You seem to be saying that extorting millions of dollars from business competitors, even if legal, is on the same moral plane as murdering millions of people. The legality issue matters a bit, insofar as a potential competitor has notice that such business risks may occur, and can plan for them economically before entering the market, whereas people don't reasonably expect to be rounded up and sent off to concentration camps fitted with gas chambers as a matter of course. But the more important point is that I don't consider business dealings, however harsh or unethical, to be on the same moral plane as genocide.
tlrobinson 13y ago
Godwin's Law strikes again.
- sadfafda 13y ago
  It never fails, a guy mentioning Godwin's Law. It has almost become like a law...

gruseom 13y ago

They make deals where they sell patents to East Texas shell companies but keep 90% of the proceeds from their shakedown lawsuits. That's what This American Life uncovered recently—they looked at just one (laughably illegitimate) patent, and found that hundreds of millions of dollars had been extracted using that one alone. I don't know how you could listen to that and not find the case devastating. If the broadcast was unfair, I'd very much like to hear the rebuttal. All TAL did was follow up on the example that IV themselves had given as exemplary of what they do, and it turned out to be shockingly unjust. So I do think most people here would disagree with their methods.

Wingman4l7 13y ago
For those who are interested: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/w... http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...
DaniFong 13y ago
This is a good point, but far from complete. It is not like they are rolling in the proceeds. Word on the street is that the IV funds are not profitable yet. Also, inventors, who they purchase patents from, are in fact getting checks in the mail. So at least one of the following are true: - They are paying inventors (patent holders) too much - Nobody should pay inventors at all - They should be more aggressive in acquiring settlements / awards in court. - They should shut down completely. - They should cut overhead. Of the above, cutting overhead seems most reasonable. But there are significant activities in their invention lab. They have the world's most advanced malaria modeling system. They are developing a cold chain for vaccines with an incredibly clever thermo-mechanically activated cold finger for control. They are pushing metamaterials. They have an incredibly cool mosquito calming project. They run invention dinners where amazingly brilliant, cool people attack novel problems in novel ways. And TerraPower could, if they are successful, crack the energy problem. Cutting overhead would hurt most of the incredibly commendable activities that they are doing. It takes big bucks to run an invention lab. This isn't the only way, of course. But I'm calling it when I see it: IV is making honest efforts to invent and commercialize a series of amazing inventions, including those in the physical world. Almost nobody else is doing this today. They are funding inventors -- their own and outside inventors, through what many believe are questionable methods exploiting legal loopholes, but are in fact often direclty in keeping with the intent of an admittedly archaic and outdated system. And they're being scapegoated not because they might be a patent troll, but because they are a publicly identifiable organization with public inventions and activities, and public advocacy. And it's a damned shame that we are so clannish that the are ready to, without thinking, without the requisite knowledge, damn one of the only truly ambitious efforts in physical invention, and great hacker, simply because we do not understand, do not approve of, or are uncomfortable with, the systems that are being used to support invention.

staunch 13y ago

He may be a nice enough guy, but how can you possibly justify what he does with IV? I doubt he's an evil person, but what he does with patents is very plainly evil.

DaniFong 13y ago
In his own words: "The patent system exists to give economic incentive to create inventions -- not products. After all, profit is the incentive to create and sell products. In order to have a level playing field, inventors must have a full set of rights, regardless of whether they are big or little, or whether they make products or just invent. Those rights are what give them the incentive to work long and hard on new ideas that may not work. A lot of big innovative companies agree with this -- companies like DuPont, GE, Qualcomm and 3M, as well as the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, have filed amicus briefs in support of MercExchange and equal rights for all inventors." "Perhaps the biggest myth is the danger "patent trolls" -- people who supposedly manipulate the patent system in a shady way. It does happen, but apart from some anecdotes, no evidence has been offered that patent trolls are a major problem. Court records show that only 2% of all patent lawsuits are due to plaintiffs that have no ongoing product business. Of that 2%, the vast majority are perfectly legitimate companies or universities. A tiny minority of patent suits are due to bad actors, but it's hardly a crisis. While I was at Microsoft, we encountered a couple of patent manipulators, but frankly we won those cases; at worst they were a nuisance." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114368437650611883.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114368437650611883.html I think that on the balance IV in actual operation strives to create a good working environment for inventors and invention. I think that the invention session s that they holds and the work they do to commercialize is in fact a significant, genuine positive. I think they are actually trying to do good, and are a net plus within the existing system. That said, I think the existing system has long outlived its usefulness. I think, today, it is a net negative. The biggest problems: overhead, unclear rights, patents that should never have been granted, the assumption of validity, thickets, and injunction as the primary right. That, and the fact that it is difficult to willingly give one's inventions to the public. But I have come around on much. In previous eras, I gave the honor to those who could create products and companies around their inventions. Ideas were cheap, I would say. In fact, it takes immense determination to legitimately reduce an idea to practice -- the intended goal of a disclosure in the patent system. Through immense effort I have learned the ropes, learning to found companies and manage them, raise money, find markets, plan, recruit and manage commercialization and manufacturing. I might only get 10 - 20% of my time to invent. It is absurd that we ask all of our inventors to do this simply to make a buck. For every one of me there would be dozens who either couldn't, or shouldn't have to. In private discussions with Nathan, he is well aware -- more than I -- of the limitations in the patent system. Nonetheless, within that system, he is trying to do a good thing. I do not call this evil. My own company has essentially had its strategy forced upon us. We have applied for nearly 80 patents, at great expense of time and money, to defend ourselves from other companies. We had a great many ideas. Eventually, several multi-billion dollar organizations became interested in a few ideas we had patented. Each would be worth a huge amount to their organization if the product was successful. Should we not license the patent because the patent system is "evil?" Occasionally the system actually fulfills its stated purpose. Intellectual ventures buys intellectual property, often directly from inventors. It sells particular chunks to interested buyers. In one, highly controversial "peacekeeping" tactic, IV buys and assembles bundles of packets, to destory packet thickets and get "live ammo" out of the play. They then license the bundles to large organizations, like Microsoft, Cisco, Apple. The big guys; selling them the closest form of freedom to operate that exists in todays world. Is this evil? I think not. At the end of the day, through IV's actions, inventors get checks in the mail, large corporations get more freedom to operate, lawsuits that might have existed are defused, and some of the ideas that make the giant tech megacorps so profitable are actually paid for, to some extent, to their originators and appraisers. That is how the system is supposed to work. It might be that the system has so much collateral damage that all these activities are a net negative. But let us not begrudge IV their intent. If actors are legally trying to do good within a flawed system, and in the process doing more harm than good, it is a flaw of the system more than the actor. I basically think they've taken the flak for being a "patent troll" simply because they were a prominent target. They are scapegoating, without good judgement. In fact, I believe IV is, at worst, misguided and large enough that missteps cause devastation out of line snd proportion to their intent, and at best, genuinely working to usher in a new age of private invention.

jingo 13y ago

"Do you know him?" How does that matter? Maybe the issue the commenter is raising is not personal. Maybe it has nothing to do with personalities or generosity. Maybe he is raising the issue of IV's business model: further exploiting a broken system. Some might opine that such exploitation is not a good thing, and we should not condone it let alone support it. We can all make solid returns from patent trolling with very little risk. Seriously. The money is great. The USPTO is not going to fix the problems any time soon. Does that mean we should all be working on patent troll "businesses"? Should we be doing all our business through shell corporations with PO Boxes in Eastern Texas? What if I could guarantee you a reasonable return? Would you invest in my patent trolling business? Why did Myrvold have to use his own money to start IV? Did he not want to take outside investment? Or maybe there was some other reason? I'm not sure what you think he and Detmer are trying to do with IV. I think they're trying to make money as a tax collector on innovation. More power to them. The system allows this. It's all legal. However, I can't quite see how the taxes innovators must pay to IV are adding any value. At best, they are paying for protection (nevermind why they should need such protection in the first place). Educate me. What am I missing?

DaniFong 13y ago
As for whether knowing him matters, the question is not whether you know him personally, but whether you actually understand what he does or is trying to do. Honestly I think most people who pay judgement do not, but it is too painful to see otherwise sane members of the HN community scapegoating someone without knowledge. TerraPower is one of the most courageous and exciting approaches in technology today. It is absurd to think it is being done for PR purposes. --- See my reply to Staunch as how I see it. One response to your phrase: "Tax collector on innovation." I think the concept at issue here is whether or not invention -- the creation of an idea and how to actual execute it -- is worth anything versus innovation -- brining a new concept to market. Having been involved in both, it does seem invention is massively short changed versus innovation. I disagree somewhat with the methods. But the complete view of it would be that IV is trying to collect taxes from rulers, innovators, and all out copiers, and pay the inventors. --- They actually do pay inventors. Possibly too much. Word on the street is that they are not profitable. Or possibly the overhead is too high. Or perhaps they are simply not as aggressive as people might imagine.

ghshephard 13y ago

How on earth can you defend Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures? If there was a single venture that I thought was completely indefensible, it was IV. "Genius" is not the word that comes to my mind, "Patent Trolling and extrapolating money out of productive members of society" is. He may be a nice person, but IV is doing very bad things. Sometimes it does matter how you make your money.