5 ms·

IV is a garbage company trying to portray itself as a bastion of innovation. There are certain severe "bugs" in the way our intellectual property laws work in

IV is a garbage company trying to portray itself as a bastion of innovation. There are certain severe "bugs" in the way our intellectual property laws work in the US. IV exploits these bugs to make Billions of dollars. IV is not concerned with whether something is good or not. They exist to make hay while the intellectual property laws remain broken. I had no idea they had 500 people working for them. That means that there are at least 500 people that are severely deluded, or morally repugnant. If you are an engineer or a lawyer familiar with the patent laws in this country, you can't read the claims asserted by IV and say that they are boosting "innovation" with a straight face. What they do is a dead weight loss on our economy. I feel sorry for the people that work at IV. They have whored themselves out for a little bit more money, instead of just working productively in this economy. I don't know how you can show your face in front of your kids and family knowing you go to work every day in an extortion racket. I would rather make a modest living and look at myself in the mirror with no shame.

sonoffett 12y ago
Do you find judgement and shame to be constructive communication tools for positive change?
- Natsu 12y ago
  They appear to be widely and successfully used tools, but I don't like them.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Well, if we look to religious texts, they have been the cornerstone of social control for millennia. There may be better tools, but judgement and shame have been undeniably effective.
- TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
  If it shames people from joining them and filing garbage software patents, then yes. You aren't going to convince someone that works at IV one way or another. Its not like they haven't heard the arguments before. Its just that they don't care.
- letstryagain 12y ago
  IV is an evil corporation. It does not feel pain. It cannot be reasoned with. Nathan Myhrvold struck it rich with Microsoft, then he beat cancer and now he's repaying us for all this luck by becoming the biggest patent troll the world has ever seen. Nathan is a shitstain.
  - aaronbrethorst 12y ago
    > then he beat cancer I think you're confusing him with Paul Allen on this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen#Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen#Microsoft
    - jbuzbee 12y ago
      Paul Allen. Huh. So what is it about these pathetic Microsoft guys? http://www.wired.com/2010/08/paul-allen-patent-lawsuit/ http://www.wired.com/2010/08/paul-allen-patent-lawsuit/
      - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
        Do you have any idea how morally bankrupt Microsoft was in the 90s? These guys got their training at Microsoft. The irony is the chief has completely changed, while the underlings continue on, perhaps trying to move out of his shadow. Edit: Perhaps a little context is in order for the younger crowd here, since the MS today is very different from the MS of the 90s. First is "embrace, extend, extinguish", which was used to great effect with Internet Explorer and with Java. Their FUD campaign against Linux was legendary. They played nasty tricks during acquisitions. The list goes on[1]. 1. http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_4.html http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_4.html (To be fair, this person obviously has an axe to grind, so read with a bit of skepticism, but I worked at both competitors and partners of MS during that time, at neither position was very comfortable.)
programmarchy 12y ago
I think dogpiling Intellectual Ventures is striking at the branches, and not at the root. The problem isn’t “patent trolls.” The problem is patents: > Even if patents actually accomplished their advertised purpose — “securing for limited Times to … Inventors the exclusive Right to their … Discoveries,” as the US Constitution puts it — they’d be a very bad idea. The claim that one can own an idea is silly on its face, and not a claim that anyone would pay the slightest mind to were it not enforced at gunpoint by the state. > But the advertised purpose of patents is not their actual purpose. > Their actual purpose is to restrain competition and limit innovation so as to provide economic advantage — monopoly pricing power, in fact — to established firms who, by virtue of their ability to pay off (pardon my indelicate language; I believe the word I’m looking for is “lobby”) politicians, bureaucrats and judges, can thereby indulge their desire avoid market competition on price or quality. [1] [1] http://c4ss.org/content/24371 http://c4ss.org/content/24371
- ejain 12y ago
  > I think dogpiling Intellectual Ventures is striking at the branches, and not at the root. Unfortunately the branches are protecting the roots with millions of dollars in lobbying [1]... [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/patent-seller-intellectual-ventures-sets-up-its-own-lobbying-effort-in-dc/2013/08/23/2dd51e5e-09e7-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/paten...
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Poisoning the fruit of those branches (those who've worked there) is absolutely fine by me.
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
  > The problem is patents: No, patents are fine. The problem is that current patent laws enable patent trolls. If we could find a way to eradicate patent trolls while preserving patents, their intent would be served much better. For example, you should only be able to acquire patents if you can prove you have a business pertinent to those patents. This kind of measure would instantly kill all patent trolls.
tempermanent 12y ago
> severely deluded, or morally repugnant. c'mon, man ... capitalism isn't as voluntary as you're suggesting. Are these really the only possibilities?

sonoffett 12y ago

Do you find judgement and shame to be constructive communication tools for positive change?

Natsu 12y ago
They appear to be widely and successfully used tools, but I don't like them.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Well, if we look to religious texts, they have been the cornerstone of social control for millennia. There may be better tools, but judgement and shame have been undeniably effective.
TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
If it shames people from joining them and filing garbage software patents, then yes. You aren't going to convince someone that works at IV one way or another. Its not like they haven't heard the arguments before. Its just that they don't care.
letstryagain 12y ago
IV is an evil corporation. It does not feel pain. It cannot be reasoned with. Nathan Myhrvold struck it rich with Microsoft, then he beat cancer and now he's repaying us for all this luck by becoming the biggest patent troll the world has ever seen. Nathan is a shitstain.
- aaronbrethorst 12y ago
  > then he beat cancer I think you're confusing him with Paul Allen on this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen#Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen#Microsoft
  - jbuzbee 12y ago
    Paul Allen. Huh. So what is it about these pathetic Microsoft guys? http://www.wired.com/2010/08/paul-allen-patent-lawsuit/ http://www.wired.com/2010/08/paul-allen-patent-lawsuit/
    - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
      Do you have any idea how morally bankrupt Microsoft was in the 90s? These guys got their training at Microsoft. The irony is the chief has completely changed, while the underlings continue on, perhaps trying to move out of his shadow. Edit: Perhaps a little context is in order for the younger crowd here, since the MS today is very different from the MS of the 90s. First is "embrace, extend, extinguish", which was used to great effect with Internet Explorer and with Java. Their FUD campaign against Linux was legendary. They played nasty tricks during acquisitions. The list goes on[1]. 1. http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_4.html http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_4.html (To be fair, this person obviously has an axe to grind, so read with a bit of skepticism, but I worked at both competitors and partners of MS during that time, at neither position was very comfortable.)

programmarchy 12y ago

I think dogpiling Intellectual Ventures is striking at the branches, and not at the root. The problem isn’t “patent trolls.” The problem is patents: > Even if patents actually accomplished their advertised purpose — “securing for limited Times to … Inventors the exclusive Right to their … Discoveries,” as the US Constitution puts it — they’d be a very bad idea. The claim that one can own an idea is silly on its face, and not a claim that anyone would pay the slightest mind to were it not enforced at gunpoint by the state. > But the advertised purpose of patents is not their actual purpose. > Their actual purpose is to restrain competition and limit innovation so as to provide economic advantage — monopoly pricing power, in fact — to established firms who, by virtue of their ability to pay off (pardon my indelicate language; I believe the word I’m looking for is “lobby”) politicians, bureaucrats and judges, can thereby indulge their desire avoid market competition on price or quality. [1] [1] http://c4ss.org/content/24371 http://c4ss.org/content/24371

ejain 12y ago
> I think dogpiling Intellectual Ventures is striking at the branches, and not at the root. Unfortunately the branches are protecting the roots with millions of dollars in lobbying [1]... [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/patent-seller-intellectual-ventures-sets-up-its-own-lobbying-effort-in-dc/2013/08/23/2dd51e5e-09e7-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/paten...
dredmorbius 12y ago
Poisoning the fruit of those branches (those who've worked there) is absolutely fine by me.
zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
> The problem is patents: No, patents are fine. The problem is that current patent laws enable patent trolls. If we could find a way to eradicate patent trolls while preserving patents, their intent would be served much better. For example, you should only be able to acquire patents if you can prove you have a business pertinent to those patents. This kind of measure would instantly kill all patent trolls.

tempermanent 12y ago

> severely deluded, or morally repugnant. c'mon, man ... capitalism isn't as voluntary as you're suggesting. Are these really the only possibilities?