6 ms·

> The main issue debated is whether or not companies like IV hurt or help innovation with its business practices. This is an interesting point. Has anyone (wit

> The main issue debated is whether or not companies like IV hurt or help innovation with its business practices. This is an interesting point. Has anyone (without a direct financial interest to do so) made a credible argument that IV is anything other than harmful to innovation?

asaddhamani 12y ago
There's this one article, it might not meet all your criteria though. [1] [1] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/12/10/the-other-side-of-the-debate-over-patent-trolls/id=46671/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/12/10/the-other-side-of-the-d...
lukifer 12y ago
Devil's advocate: A secondary market for patents incentivizes investors to fund innovation, in the hopes of re-selling when/if the IP becomes valuable. That's the story, anyway. In the real world, I think patents are vastly net-negative towards genuine innovation, and in most cases, morally repugnant besides.
- jsmeaton 12y ago
  A secondary market for patents is fantastic. There are secondary markets for everything. The banking/venture system is designed to allocate scarce resources as efficiently as possible - why wouldn't the same thing exist for inventions? The real problem IMO is that patents are being issued for frivolous ideas. If patents really represented inventions of value, then the secondary market should be correctly allocating those patents to the right people. Unfortunately, patents do not represent inventions of value, because what we see is the secondary market identifying "infringements" everywhere, so it's more profitable to extort. If there are so many infringements, how is the patent possibly novel?
  - lukifer 12y ago
    I agree that the practical problem with the current patent system is in implementation: the granting and enforcement of broad, poorly-defined patents, and the costs of litigation. Whether it's possible for a good implementation to exist, particularly in a long-lived form that copes well with radically new technologies, is debatable. My moral objection to patents can be concisely summed up by John Carmack: "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." Anything that is so specific that it could not be reproduced by an independent human in a clean room (ie, the full text of Harry Potter) is well protected by copyright. Anything which can be reproduced through simple problem-solving can not be said to be "owned" by its creator. Patents outlaw thinking itself.
- axman6 12y ago
  Without an excellent argument, I don't think I can agree. Many members of the public believe patents are a bad thing for society because 99% of all reporting on them is about the negative aspects; you rarely hear about the good that has come from them. It's the same reason people in the US feel less safe than ever from violent crimes even though the rates have dropped significantly. the norm is boring and the exceptions are newsworthy.
  - lukifer 12y ago
    In practice, the efficacy of patents probably varies by industry. For software patents, I have a hard time thinking of a single instance where they benefitted innovation. Does anyone really think that Amazon wouldn't have 1-Click, or Apple wouldn't have rubber-banding, without patent protection? In other domains, I'm sure there are instances where patents did genuine good, benefitting both their creators and society. (It's worth noting that patents are specified in the Constitution as intended for the public good.) However, I still contend that the net effect is, on average, a drag on innovation, even if it's closer to 60/40 than 99/1. The system incentivizes a "mutually assured destruction" of big companies and patent portfolios, and blocks out small players who can't afford a legal team. It moves market competition into the domain of a flawed justice system, where even a victory can destroy a creator through millions in legal fees and years of lost productivity. It creates a vacuum filled by companies like IV who sit on their laurels and milk patent licenses, often for inventions never realized, rather than actually make anything.
chris_va 12y ago
Good question, unclear answer. IV is not a typical patent troll, so the standard patent troll argument is hard to apply. They do not file large numbers of small lawsuits, but rather a small number of very large lawsuits (e.g. against the Intel/Ford/AIG types). They generally do loser pays, and a few other things that make them hard to bucket as a normal patent troll. IV spends a large amount of money (billions [1]) on purchasing patents. One might reasonably expect that to encourage innovation. As I understand it, most of those patents are not software patents, though (again I am not 100% sure) a large fraction of their lawsuits are based on software patents [citation needed]. One might reasonable expect that to discourage innovation. An interesting anecdote: Nest bought IV licenses to defend itself from Honeywell [2]. I would argue that Nest is a relatively decent innovation, so in this (very specific) case, one could argue that IV encouraged innovation. As I said, hard to balance. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/11/us-microsoft-apple-patents-idUSBREA3A0R020140411 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/11/us-microsoft-apple... [2] http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/11/nest-buys-protection-licenses-patents-from-intellectual-ventures-to-fight-honeywell-others/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/11/nest-buys-protection-licens...
- shmerl 12y ago
  > IV spends a large amount of money (billions [1]) on purchasing patents. One might reasonably expect that to encourage innovation. I don't see how purchasing any kind of patents can encourage innovation. Innovation is encouraged by returns from the innovation, not by returns from sold patents. Recycling patents for profit is a completely parasitic business which has nothing to do with innovation.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    If you give money to people in exchange for innovation that encourages innovation. That said, purchasing patents only encourages innovation if those patents are the product of innovation.
    - shmerl 12y ago
      Judging by the current patent system, patents and innovation aren't equal in many cases. On the contrary, patents are often equal to the stifling of innovation. So giving money for patents is not equal to giving money for innovation in general case.
baddox 12y ago
This is grasping at straws, but I could argue that IV has brought a lot of attention to the ludicrous nature of our IP system, which might lead to increased support of IP reform, which could help innovation.
tzs 12y ago
Their partner programs where they partner with inventors to fund the development of inventions, and then handle the licensing and commercialization, seem like they could help innovation. Here's a description of their partnership with Caltech [1]: The partnership allows Intellectual Ventures to fund the inventive work of students and faculty in areas of interest to Intellectual Ventures, such as next generation data centers, dynamic surgical enhancements, and green and sustainable chemistry. Caltech will own the resulting patents and IV will receive a license to commercialize the technology. The inventors will earn a share of the profits from inventions that are commercialized, and will also have an option to create startup companies based on their innovations. I believe they have made similar arrangements with several other universities. [1] http://www.intellectualventures.com/news/press-releases/california-institute-of-technology-and-intellectual-ventures-partnership-to http://www.intellectualventures.com/news/press-releases/cali...

asaddhamani 12y ago

There's this one article, it might not meet all your criteria though. [1] [1] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/12/10/the-other-side-of-the-debate-over-patent-trolls/id=46671/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/12/10/the-other-side-of-the-d...

lukifer 12y ago

Devil's advocate: A secondary market for patents incentivizes investors to fund innovation, in the hopes of re-selling when/if the IP becomes valuable. That's the story, anyway. In the real world, I think patents are vastly net-negative towards genuine innovation, and in most cases, morally repugnant besides.

jsmeaton 12y ago
A secondary market for patents is fantastic. There are secondary markets for everything. The banking/venture system is designed to allocate scarce resources as efficiently as possible - why wouldn't the same thing exist for inventions? The real problem IMO is that patents are being issued for frivolous ideas. If patents really represented inventions of value, then the secondary market should be correctly allocating those patents to the right people. Unfortunately, patents do not represent inventions of value, because what we see is the secondary market identifying "infringements" everywhere, so it's more profitable to extort. If there are so many infringements, how is the patent possibly novel?
- lukifer 12y ago
  I agree that the practical problem with the current patent system is in implementation: the granting and enforcement of broad, poorly-defined patents, and the costs of litigation. Whether it's possible for a good implementation to exist, particularly in a long-lived form that copes well with radically new technologies, is debatable. My moral objection to patents can be concisely summed up by John Carmack: "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." Anything that is so specific that it could not be reproduced by an independent human in a clean room (ie, the full text of Harry Potter) is well protected by copyright. Anything which can be reproduced through simple problem-solving can not be said to be "owned" by its creator. Patents outlaw thinking itself.
axman6 12y ago
Without an excellent argument, I don't think I can agree. Many members of the public believe patents are a bad thing for society because 99% of all reporting on them is about the negative aspects; you rarely hear about the good that has come from them. It's the same reason people in the US feel less safe than ever from violent crimes even though the rates have dropped significantly. the norm is boring and the exceptions are newsworthy.
- lukifer 12y ago
  In practice, the efficacy of patents probably varies by industry. For software patents, I have a hard time thinking of a single instance where they benefitted innovation. Does anyone really think that Amazon wouldn't have 1-Click, or Apple wouldn't have rubber-banding, without patent protection? In other domains, I'm sure there are instances where patents did genuine good, benefitting both their creators and society. (It's worth noting that patents are specified in the Constitution as intended for the public good.) However, I still contend that the net effect is, on average, a drag on innovation, even if it's closer to 60/40 than 99/1. The system incentivizes a "mutually assured destruction" of big companies and patent portfolios, and blocks out small players who can't afford a legal team. It moves market competition into the domain of a flawed justice system, where even a victory can destroy a creator through millions in legal fees and years of lost productivity. It creates a vacuum filled by companies like IV who sit on their laurels and milk patent licenses, often for inventions never realized, rather than actually make anything.

chris_va 12y ago

Good question, unclear answer. IV is not a typical patent troll, so the standard patent troll argument is hard to apply. They do not file large numbers of small lawsuits, but rather a small number of very large lawsuits (e.g. against the Intel/Ford/AIG types). They generally do loser pays, and a few other things that make them hard to bucket as a normal patent troll. IV spends a large amount of money (billions [1]) on purchasing patents. One might reasonably expect that to encourage innovation. As I understand it, most of those patents are not software patents, though (again I am not 100% sure) a large fraction of their lawsuits are based on software patents [citation needed]. One might reasonable expect that to discourage innovation. An interesting anecdote: Nest bought IV licenses to defend itself from Honeywell [2]. I would argue that Nest is a relatively decent innovation, so in this (very specific) case, one could argue that IV encouraged innovation. As I said, hard to balance. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/11/us-microsoft-apple-patents-idUSBREA3A0R020140411 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/11/us-microsoft-apple... [2] http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/11/nest-buys-protection-licenses-patents-from-intellectual-ventures-to-fight-honeywell-others/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/11/nest-buys-protection-licens...

shmerl 12y ago
> IV spends a large amount of money (billions [1]) on purchasing patents. One might reasonably expect that to encourage innovation. I don't see how purchasing any kind of patents can encourage innovation. Innovation is encouraged by returns from the innovation, not by returns from sold patents. Recycling patents for profit is a completely parasitic business which has nothing to do with innovation.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  If you give money to people in exchange for innovation that encourages innovation. That said, purchasing patents only encourages innovation if those patents are the product of innovation.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    Judging by the current patent system, patents and innovation aren't equal in many cases. On the contrary, patents are often equal to the stifling of innovation. So giving money for patents is not equal to giving money for innovation in general case.

baddox 12y ago

This is grasping at straws, but I could argue that IV has brought a lot of attention to the ludicrous nature of our IP system, which might lead to increased support of IP reform, which could help innovation.

tzs 12y ago

Their partner programs where they partner with inventors to fund the development of inventions, and then handle the licensing and commercialization, seem like they could help innovation. Here's a description of their partnership with Caltech [1]: The partnership allows Intellectual Ventures to fund the inventive work of students and faculty in areas of interest to Intellectual Ventures, such as next generation data centers, dynamic surgical enhancements, and green and sustainable chemistry. Caltech will own the resulting patents and IV will receive a license to commercialize the technology. The inventors will earn a share of the profits from inventions that are commercialized, and will also have an option to create startup companies based on their innovations. I believe they have made similar arrangements with several other universities. [1] http://www.intellectualventures.com/news/press-releases/california-institute-of-technology-and-intellectual-ventures-partnership-to http://www.intellectualventures.com/news/press-releases/cali...