5 ms·
I admire a good contrarian defence. With respect, though, I think it goes off the rails here: And they're being scapegoated not because they might be a patent
by gruseom 13y ago
I admire a good contrarian defence. With respect, though, I think it goes off the rails here:
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
From everything I've seen, they're being scapegoated precisely because they are a patent troll. And rightly so, because the end doesn't justify the means.
- DaniFong 13y agoSorry! Good point. What I meant to say was that if they are a patent troll, they are not the trolliest of the trolls. They are merely the most public.
- tptacek 13y agoThe allegation that Planet Money is making is that while IV may not be the trolliest of the trolls, part of its business model involves arming exactly those trolls while concealing the relationship. I want to find a way to rationalize what IV does (for different, dumber reasons; I just happen to like their book _Modernist Cuisine_), but the evidence we have from reporters looks very bad.
- DaniFong 13y agoAgree that, especially, the recent uncovered Origin lawsuit stuff looks pretty bad. It is probably worth considering the activities of customers, allies, partners, and taking responsibility. (e.g. for that matter, we are allied with Saudi Arabia, and rely on them for our oil. The world is full of nasty compromises...) But the stuff that they are actually developing, the inventors they're supporting, the work they're doing in nuclear shouldn't be painted with the same brush. This is supposed to be hacker news, and the top comment about a new nuclear startup isn't about technology at all; it's about how someone doesn't like one of the principals.