Alternatively, he's a guy who did a physics PhD when he was 23, did cosmology post-doc studies under Stephen Hawking, founded a software company and sold it to Microsoft when he was 27, and later created Microsoft Research at the ripe age of 31.
But maybe that counts for nothing when an emotional topic like patents is involved. Look, an ugly troll, let's throw some rocks!
But if they were licencing, then their patents were actually being 'practiced,' just not by them, so the net effect is the same. Can you support on one hand the patenting of ideas companies develop while working on a product, but on the other hand complain when those patents are traded to someone else? Further, what about when a company does some difficult research, solves a problem, gets a patent - is that really 'Non-Practicing' ? Some trolls have got no intention of licencing anything, or researching anything, they just launch surprise lawsuits and ignore licencing requests.
First, it's not the patents that don't get practice, it's the entities doing the patenting. If you hld a patent, but don't actually use the technology yourself, you're an NPE, approximately.
Second, patent law doesn't have an independent invention excuse. One can invent something, not patent it, and use it for years without running into trouble. A Non-Practicing Entity can get a patent, and sue you into oblivion. How many cases of "patent holder sues 10 tech giants" have you seen in the news? Do you suppose that every one of the 397 companies (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-and-google...) sued by GeoTag, Inc. filched the idea behind the patent? Do you suppose that any of those 397 companies copied the idea from GeoTag, Inc's product(s)?
Do you think that Intellectual Ventures has any intent of producing product(s) with any of it's large number of patents?
I don't know, one wonders why GeoTag filed ~400 patents at the exact same time, but the basic idea of an R&D only company that makes money by licencing its discoveries, or even of a company that makes money by buying other peoples patents, seem to be logical extensions of having any agreeance with the patent system. Bad patents, of course, are another matter (or being sued for something you 'invented' - isn't that supposed to be impossible?)
That's certainly consistent with the current, US Constitution basis for patents, to encourage general progress by giving a limited monopoly to an inventor.
It's not consistent with any kind of "ownership basis" for patents, which gives someone a monopoly on an idea because of the exceptional, very special nature of the invention. If we grant ownership of an idea to someone based on the incredibleness of their invention, then surely an independent inventor deserves the same, or maybe even more, privilege on the idea.
Patent cases don't consider whether the alleged infringer "stole"/copied the idea, or thought of it independently. The one study that has been done on this appears to support independent invention in almost all cases: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160
I thought you meant 'original' inventor, not just independant invention.
Also it makes sense that most cases would point to independant invention, as if a business stole it they'd have every reason to believe they'd get caught... maybe. My point is that if independant invention was a successful defence then perhaps 'everyone' would use it and most patents wouldn't work at all.
OK, here's a challenge to you. What has Nathan Myhrvold actually ever created. He didn't make any great contribution to physics or cosmology. His software company made a product that was a clone of another product. Microsoft Research has been a money drain since its inception (having never created a revolutionary advance). And now he runs a company that does nothing but file patents.
But also they have done some really cool stuff. Like they have this device that uses laser to shoot down individual mosquitoes, but not just any mosquitoe, but uses technology to see how the blood is flowing in the mosqitoe (as its flying through the air) to decide which mosqitoes are carrying malaria, and only shoot those.
He also has built a portable refrigeration unit that can store vaccines (and other meds) for long periods of time with no power. Besides the cookbook though, I don't think he's created anything you'd buy at a store. Most of his work is focused on environmental and 3rd world issues.
He's an amazing business-model innovator (though probably all credit goes to Jerome Lemelson for the original implementation; too bad Jerry wasn't aware of business-method patents!).
Microsoft Research has been a money drain since its inception (having never created a revolutionary advance).
I can only assume you don't know anything about MS Research. They've been producing more published CS papers than anyone else for years now. They conducted the user studies that went into region-specific handwriting recognition on their tablets, and the Office Ribbon. They also developed the vision system in the Kinect. http://research.microsoft.com/ They're doing an amazing amount of research there.
Given the amount of money Microsoft has to throw around, I don't think the amount of research is in any way remarkable. Though there are definitely some amazing products coming out of MS research.
It's essentially a modern day protection racket created out of our poor patent system. Myhrvold and company patent a bunch of vauge "forward looking" ideas. Actual product people then create an actual product and have to pay them because one of their vague ideas could conflict.
The only reason it works is because Myhrvold made a bunch of Microsoft money (he never created a product there either) so everyone fears going against him in a lawsuit.
The patent (and copyright) system is constitutionally mandated, specifically to promote "Science and useful Arts," by giving people temporary exclusivity on what they create.
Since this kind of activity doesn't appear to actually promote science or the useful arts, I argue that the fact that our allows this kind of behavior using our patent system is unconstitutional.
Here's one simplistic way of looking at this type of thing:
You're in class, or on the job, and you're trying to get something done. Your classmate, or coworker, comes up and says, "Have you thought about doing it this way?" You poke around for a while, maybe with some help from them, and lo and behold, it works! You are grateful and don't mind sharing the credit.
Next month, you're working on something else. After busting your hump for a week, you figure out a way to make it work. Another classmate, or coworker, comes up -- or better yet, pipes up during the next status meeting: Oh, I thought of that! (Let me share in some of your glory.)
You don't feel very grateful towards that prick. The leach didn't do anything for you; they just want to sponge off of your effort. (And you are probably questioning whether they really did what they claim, regardless of their lack of help.)
It's amazing that just a handful of non-producing individuals were able to skim $700MM off the software industry in just one year. How much did you pay in hidden costs to Intellectual Ventures this year?
It's difficult to put a price tag on the economic benefit of software patents -- but here we've got an obvious example of their cost.
It's probably not that much percentage terms. I mean, the software industry is worth many $100s of billions in annual revenue (incl. companies' revenues, employees' revenues, and benefits to the greater economy), so it's probably a tax on the system of less than 0.01%.
How do you know that for sure? What about all the products that didn't make it to market because they couldn't negotiate a license that worked for both parties? How about all the products that didn't make it to market for fear of incurring a suit from a troll?
It's probably a tax on the system of more than 10-20%. There, my unsupported assertion beats yours, rock-paper-scissors.
It's sad that the reporting of this type of revenue isn't reported with more than a passing "we know you all have opinions" gesture towards the unethical nature of said revenue. And by all means, debating ethics is encouraged, but acting like ethics are a curious side-note in Myhrvold's business is terrible reporting.
It's like saying "Say what you will about Bernie Madoff -- and we know you will -- but his business was quite a lucrative one, raking in over $18mm in 'missing' money when all was said and done."
TechFlash is fluffy Seattle-area "tech" company news. Mostly covers consumer-facing internet "startups" or Microsoft. Doesn't really talk much tech at all.
When you grant people the right to seek and maintain monopolies, is it any wonder that some do so?
Smart people will always find a way to exploit a weak system. We can point at the exploiters and cry foul or we can thank them for spotting the bugs and change the system. Hopefully we can do that before they purchase all the votes in Congress. Or is it too late?
The trade-off question is whether these temporary monopolies encourage innovation and therefore improve overall utility. I think the balance right now is on "no," since the trade-off is predicated on the monopolist teaching in the patent how to implement the invention, and in it being novel and non-obvious. At this point, patents seem written explicitly to avoid teaching and to maximize footprint, and are very frequently not novel and/or obvious, yet the default judgment of the patent office is to be optimistic about applications. We basically need the courts to invalidate a ton of patents which are vague and obscure (don't teach the method in a useful way), and a ton more which are obvious (describe ways to use general-purpose tools in one of their intended uses, for example, like one-click) or not novel. That'd put a damper on it. Unless all east Texas courthouses are nuked from orbit, though, this probably won't happen. :-/
35 comments
[ 15.0 ms ] story [ 1394 ms ] threadBut maybe that counts for nothing when an emotional topic like patents is involved. Look, an ugly troll, let's throw some rocks!
That makes Intellectual Ventures a Non-Practicing Entity, right?
I think we can rationally judge Myhrvold to be a troll at this point. We don't need emotional responses.
Second, patent law doesn't have an independent invention excuse. One can invent something, not patent it, and use it for years without running into trouble. A Non-Practicing Entity can get a patent, and sue you into oblivion. How many cases of "patent holder sues 10 tech giants" have you seen in the news? Do you suppose that every one of the 397 companies (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-and-google...) sued by GeoTag, Inc. filched the idea behind the patent? Do you suppose that any of those 397 companies copied the idea from GeoTag, Inc's product(s)?
Do you think that Intellectual Ventures has any intent of producing product(s) with any of it's large number of patents?
That's certainly consistent with the current, US Constitution basis for patents, to encourage general progress by giving a limited monopoly to an inventor.
It's not consistent with any kind of "ownership basis" for patents, which gives someone a monopoly on an idea because of the exceptional, very special nature of the invention. If we grant ownership of an idea to someone based on the incredibleness of their invention, then surely an independent inventor deserves the same, or maybe even more, privilege on the idea.
Patent cases don't consider whether the alleged infringer "stole"/copied the idea, or thought of it independently. The one study that has been done on this appears to support independent invention in almost all cases: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160
Also it makes sense that most cases would point to independant invention, as if a business stole it they'd have every reason to believe they'd get caught... maybe. My point is that if independant invention was a successful defence then perhaps 'everyone' would use it and most patents wouldn't work at all.
But also they have done some really cool stuff. Like they have this device that uses laser to shoot down individual mosquitoes, but not just any mosquitoe, but uses technology to see how the blood is flowing in the mosqitoe (as its flying through the air) to decide which mosqitoes are carrying malaria, and only shoot those.
He also has built a portable refrigeration unit that can store vaccines (and other meds) for long periods of time with no power. Besides the cookbook though, I don't think he's created anything you'd buy at a store. Most of his work is focused on environmental and 3rd world issues.
Yes, tongue firmly planted in cheek.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-08-21-...
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson#Patents_and_...
(The USA Today link above was a reference from this WP page)
I can only assume you don't know anything about MS Research. They've been producing more published CS papers than anyone else for years now. They conducted the user studies that went into region-specific handwriting recognition on their tablets, and the Office Ribbon. They also developed the vision system in the Kinect. http://research.microsoft.com/ They're doing an amazing amount of research there.
The only reason it works is because Myhrvold made a bunch of Microsoft money (he never created a product there either) so everyone fears going against him in a lawsuit.
Since this kind of activity doesn't appear to actually promote science or the useful arts, I argue that the fact that our allows this kind of behavior using our patent system is unconstitutional.
You're in class, or on the job, and you're trying to get something done. Your classmate, or coworker, comes up and says, "Have you thought about doing it this way?" You poke around for a while, maybe with some help from them, and lo and behold, it works! You are grateful and don't mind sharing the credit.
Next month, you're working on something else. After busting your hump for a week, you figure out a way to make it work. Another classmate, or coworker, comes up -- or better yet, pipes up during the next status meeting: Oh, I thought of that! (Let me share in some of your glory.)
You don't feel very grateful towards that prick. The leach didn't do anything for you; they just want to sponge off of your effort. (And you are probably questioning whether they really did what they claim, regardless of their lack of help.)
It's difficult to put a price tag on the economic benefit of software patents -- but here we've got an obvious example of their cost.
It's probably a tax on the system of more than 10-20%. There, my unsupported assertion beats yours, rock-paper-scissors.
It's like saying "Say what you will about Bernie Madoff -- and we know you will -- but his business was quite a lucrative one, raking in over $18mm in 'missing' money when all was said and done."
Smart people will always find a way to exploit a weak system. We can point at the exploiters and cry foul or we can thank them for spotting the bugs and change the system. Hopefully we can do that before they purchase all the votes in Congress. Or is it too late?