Slashdot Mirror
Tech Giants Bankrolling IP Hoarding Start-Up
theodp writes "Microsoft alum Nathan Myhrvold so strongly believes intellectual property is the next software that he's studying for the patent bar exam. His company, Intellectual Ventures, doesn't actually make anything - only patent attorneys roam the hallways. Myhrvold isn't the only true believer. Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Nokia, Apple, Google, and eBay have contributed to a $350M bankroll which the firm is using to buy up existing patents that can be rented to companies who want to produce real products."
Let's see how all of this will play out for linux... Good or bad?
It's a complete perversion of the original intent of the system.
Intellectual property is the biggest export of the US. People say we import everything and export nothing, but that's not true. It makes sense there would be an industry built around the largest export.
How much more broken does our system have to get before it becomes completely disfunctional.
The way I see it, These guys will basically crank random noise into the patent system until virtually every idea that trys to come into production will have a lien of some kind on it. Thereby blocking any kind of developement by the small guy, only the mega corps will be able to produce new ideas and they will keep the pace as slow as possible to maximize there profit returns on current technology. In short THIS Bites.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
...if we truly are in "The Information Age". These sentences in the article sum it up:
"Patent owners get money upfront for the dusty ideas sitting on their shelves, the investors get the rights to use the ideas without being sued and Myhrvold gets to rent those same ideas to other companies that need them to continue creating products. Intellectual-property experts say his plan is audacious and unprecedented, customized for a new, rapidly dawning business environment."
It certainly seems like a Win-Win... of course, until the first lawsuits start flying. But we'll just have to see how this shakes out. In the meantime, it makes sense to parlay information as a product in "The Information Age", and that's what's being done here.
Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
The sad thing is, this has always been the biggest danger with patents, but the people who could make a difference were too busy worrying about the big-guy-licensing-out-little-guy problem (or making their own money, depending) to notice.
Patents should work like trademarks: if you aren't actually using the invention and don't have any plans to do so within a reasonable timeframe, you automatically lose the patent rights and anyone can use the knowledge your patent documentation provides. (It would be better if you had to demonstrate a use or intended use before a patent application was approved, but that's obviously unrealistic right now.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Do you consider yourself a capitalist? Do you respect your politicians and trust them to uphold the economic system that made us great? Bad news. Your politicians are failing you, they are using government control to hurt innovation, progress, and competition. Your elected politicians do not believe in the free market, they don't believe in capitalism, and they certainly don't value innovation.
Take as another example the music/video industries . They are being kept alive by the government, not by the market. In a free market economy, we would let them collapse without shedding a tear.
It's scary. Each passing year seems to move us inexorably closer to an Orwellian society. Soon it won't be possible to have an original idea any more without the system crying foul and demanding you hand over cash for a part of it.
There needs to be a change in the Law. Once you take out a patent, you have 2-3 years to bring a product to market that makes use of the idea, or you loose claim to the patent altogether. Further more, the patent should then be transformed into an Open Patent. Available for anyone, free of charge. This is the only way to prevent further abuse of the system.
IBM is the leads in new patents every year. Their IP release form they make you sign as an employee is pretty lengthy. But IBM rarely let's their patents go because of which IBM's success is partly due from those thousands of IP patent's they attain every year. IBM already has one of the largest patent portfolios worldwide and it continues to register more patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in one year...3,415 patents in 2003 more than any other company ever has. It was the eleventh consecutive year that IBM was awarded the most patents, and it brought IBM's total over those 11 years to more than 25,000 U.S. patents. I don't think they'll be treading on Big Blue's turf for a while.
"Intellectual Ventures"... it's almost an unsettling idea to think a company like that is out there. It's an interesting idea, but I have to say I don't like it. It reminds me of the people buying up 50,000 domain names incase someone might want to use one in the future and then just sitting on them like a jerk. What a pain in the ass it would be to come up with some new idea in the future only to have to match it against a company who is sitting on 500,000 "patents" on as many broad topics as possible just to make sure the idea was never thought of before in any way shape or form. It kind of defeats the purpose of patenting if you ask me.
It's a pain enough as it is trying to find a nice domain name these days. At least when you find one you know it's yours & you can own it with certainty.
If all these "patent hoarding" companies are going to be out there claiming any broad idea that might ever be useful you won't even be able to tell if your idea's already patented or not. It won't be a simple/instant check on register.com, it will be a "Egh... well, let's start up the business, make a few million, and then hope we don't get our !@# pounded 5 years from now from 4 patent-hoarding companies claiming to have already thought of something kind of similar. What a mess.
There are a few problems of course. Certain companies in the US and EU will kick up a stink and political/economic pressure will no doubt be bought and applied. So it will need to be a fairly wealthy and largely self sufficient country, or have some other bargaining chip. Laws might get passed banning "gray imports", but that's not a problem for the seller if they have a disclaimer stating that it is up to the buyer to check import regulations before ordering and they do not accept liability for goods seized by customs. It's even easier if the product is a software program of course, there are already plenty of websites offering software for download upon recipit of credit card details, both legit and otherwise.
This whole "patent company" idea looks more like a great way for a country to hand over more control to lawyers and its industry overseas to me. And how will the overpaid lawyers get their nice shiny cars, watches and other luxury goods when their own laws prevent them from importing them?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
try not to blame _just_ the lawyers. There are even (gasp) lawyers who don't believe in the way the current system is. In any event, the law could be changed if enough people cared. Sadly, they don't :-/
Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Nokia, Apple, Google, and eBay have contributed to a $350M bankroll which the firm is using
That doesn't surprise me, once I think about it. Haven't all of those companies been stung by patent lawsuits in recent years, of one kind or another?
It makes sense that they'd want to invest in a company devoted to buying up unused patents, rather than waiting for the owners of those unused patents to jump out of the shadows and claim Apple or Microsoft is infringing on an unused idea they had fifteen years ago.
Taiwain is already an IP haven to a certain extent - because China has been so sccessful at bribing/threatening other nations on Taiwan's status, they haven't signed up to some of the more insane aspects of international treaties such as WIPO. Because the US is a big supporter, they don't suffer much for it.
What this really says to me is that Google is looking for places to invest the money from their IPO. Presumably that means they can't think of places to spend it themselves. That would make the chance of Google having some big, revolutionary plan much less likely, since such a plan would probably consume as many resources as they could throw at it to improve the chances of success. That makes me kind of sad. Google had a chance to change the world, but it seems all they really changed is the world of Internet searches.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
I understand Lawyers get paid whether they win or not.
I am serious here. 44 is not too old to start over, right?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
That's a narrow view. Are they just supposed to sit around and let others pave the way to new "IP based economy"? Face it, lawsuits and patents are the future of IT. Think that Novell won't/isn't doing the same thing? Defensive or not, OSS backer or not, every company with the resources is in an IP frenzy either acquiring patents or making sure they aren't infriging on them. Personally I hope the whole fucking system collapses on itself. That or an Ice age, that would be fine as well.
Apple lost (this was the one lawsuit many of us were hoping would sink Microsoft once and for all) because their UI elements were not 'patented'. They learnt well from this lesson and have since been patenting every widget under the sun.
I fully expect Google know their history well, and also know that Microsoft is sniffing around their territory. They would be fools to think that Microsoft would treat them any differently to Apple, and are probably thinking how to protect themselves as best they can.
Damn.
It's like a dream. I remember posting this more or less same comment in a PC Magazine online forum back in '98 or '99.
This is the endgame, folks. This is what Gates has had planned for years -- the real endgame. Not some iffy market monopoly over PC operatings systems and office software.
This is the whole enchilada. They want to own EVERYTHING worth owning. This is why the "Intellectual Property" meme has been pumped so hard these past few years. the real reason why the RIAA, MPAA, the SPA, and all the overseas equivalents are suing anything that moves. It's the natural outcome of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
The biggest boys are pooling their resources to start the ultimate monopoly. They want to put a meter on every conceivable human idea they can beg, buy, borrow or steal. I'm not overstating how enormous their ambition is. Don't look at the distracting smiling face; keep your eyes on the magicians' hands.
I DO understand that they are talking about patents. But it's really irrelevant. They are going to force revenue to precipitate out of the ether into their hands that dwarfs anything Gates ever dreamed of. And that kind of wealth, driven by monoploy players, will be used to buy up more than merely patents.
It's why MS has been pumping the RIAA and MPAA to adopt MS proprietary codecs. It's why the X-Box REALLY exists. It's about owning the culture, or more precisely, the circulatory system of the culture. They want to own processes, patents, and eventually, every piece of ownable video, audio, and images of art. They will own the newspapers, or at least the means of disseminating the newspapers. All cable networks. They want the internet(s) under their control, if only to control the information flow so it can't affect their power.
The biggest boys are lining up for a piece of something even they can't visualize. The ultimate shape of this monster will be worldwide. It's power will be greater than any government or combination of governments.
They won't permit any real change in patent or copyright laws. They might let us have token victories on things that don't matter much, but the final shape will be dictated by them.
Here's the final outcome:
A loose confederation of very wealthy men will run a structure composed of corporations that will really, truly own every copyrighted work of man. They will own our history. They will meter it out to their advantage. Witness (NBC?) refusing to permit use of a copyrighted video of Bush making an idiot of himself on TV before the election, just because they could, no reason necessary.
And these corporations will hold copyrights and perhaps even patents, in some form, for ever-extended periods of time. Effectively for eternity. Corporations can't die. They can't go to jail. You can't arrest them. They are fictions designed to hide real men from real responsibilty for their actions.
We're going to have immortal fictions own our world. Americans say, "So what? I'll buy stock."
That's why privately owned corporations are all the rage right now. Why some of the biggest are invite-only for those they deem worthy. ICANN was bought by one of these monstrosities. Some corporations are buying back their own stock with an eye to, well, not share the wealth.
I'm only pointing out the obvious.
I'm not anti-business. I'm anti-corporation. There is a difference. I want expiration dates on IP. I want the corporate shield for individual malfeasance to be gone. I want this incestuous network of greedy buggers to hew to some kind of law that they didn't write themselves. We fought long and hard to break up the 19th century trusts that were smothering the life out of representative government; I DON'T want them back, only immortal, anational, and unkillable.
"You know, I've been thinking about this kind of thing too. Just as we currently have Tax Havens, how much longer before we have the "Patent Haven"?"
How much longer? About 3 years ago. 8^)
I'm currently living in a small Pacific Island Nation (think: Cryptonomicon) which is selling itself as being conveniently free of certain obstacles to international, Internet-based commerce. I've often found myself thinking that it would be a great place to set up a software and services shop. Palm trees, hyper-affordable living, beautiful people and long evenings by the lagoon. Add to that the promise that no lawyer will ever tell you what you can or cannot do, and you'd have to call this place paradise.
So: Anyone interested? 8^)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Thats terrorist talk there bud. On that note, fuck America (or more specifically its government). It has ceased to care about any person without a million dollar pocket book. The laws of America now exist to enslave its poor and empower its rich.
;-). So when's the next civil war?
Although, the sad part is that the comman man is just as responsible as anybody else for this outcome. We have empowered them through our complacency and utter lack of regard for anything other than what is on our damn televisions every night. We have been enslaved to technology, and as a result those that produce that technology own us all. Especially, now that what we see on television (our defacto standard for the propogation of our culture) tells us that men have to be ignorant fools who are only interested in football, sex, gadgets, and being retarded with their friends to fit in. And women just have to buy everything including a perfect body to do the same. We are trained to be submissive idiots, questioning those who are otherwise.
Oh well, at least we still have our sweet... sweet capitalism. At least we have a choice of where we buy things. You know ma & pa shop down the street or Wal-Mart up the street for 70% less (which coincidentally enough is all you can afford now that you work there). Good thing McCarthy came along and kept us from falling into the hell hole of desperation that is communism.
And at least we still have our voice in our government. You know our solitary occasional whispering voices, compared to industries full time lobbyists. I am perfectly satisfied with all of my governmental representatives are you
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Surely if it's behind closed doors then governments can safely ignore it. Only by getting these loopholes out in the open and widely exploited will anyone be bothered to change the system. That is, unless the government wants this sort of behaviour and that is what the law is designed for. In which case, it isn't a loophole.
From Wikipedia: Mercantilism is the economic theory that a nation's prosperity depended upon its supply of gold and silver, that the total volume of trade is unchangeable.
And naturally, from there comes the whole family of crazy ideas about tariffs and "protecting the domestic industry." But, in this case, I don't see anything related to international trade (the only thing vaguely "international" seems to be, er, something about USA forcing other countries to have similar patent laws...)
So, how is this mercantilism, or were you just using a buzz word without knowing what it meant?
You don't have to redefine evil. Jesus did it for you already.
Love of money is the root of all evil.
There, nice and easy to understand and 100% correct.
It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Rich people become rich because they love money. If they have richness thrust upon them (inheritance, IPO etc) they stay rich because they fall in love with money and want to keep it for themselves.
evil is as evil does
Interesting, but I'm not sure how limiting corporate income would discourage anyone from staking out IP claims, waiting for others to do the actual inventing, then swooping in to seize the profits.
Cops have a great deal of discretion with regard to misdemeanors. Often the only deciding factor is how much whiskey they've had. Only felonies actually require cops not to ignore it. The same is true to some degree with any position of enforcement right up to the president. (President doesn't make law, he enforces it, right?) It is not supposed to be this way, but that's just how it works from crossing guards all the way up to USPTO.
I'm sorting through 2100 patents and applications that match my keywords. So far nothing that I would infringe. But there are two outcomes:
1. Yes, I'm the first one to this idea.
or a realistic probability that
2: I could infringe on someone's generically worded patent.
Okay, so if that is the playing field, what would you anti-this-idea zealots suggest??
If I infringe, then I have to look at who has the patent and attempt to contact them. I'd have to look up where their office is, and even if they're alive.
Then I have to attempt to make contact. Phonecalls and emails out of the blue for them, cold calling for me. Then the lawyers step in and negotiate.
So a lot of ball-ache, and the kicker is that once I call they know that I'm interested, and they can start to probe me to see how much it's worth to me.
With this idea, I can see advantages for having one [or several] known company who unifies the process:
1) Known address
2) Contact details for sales
3) Secretaries to take my inquiries
4) Some corporate information so that I don't have to spend £££ getting my lawyers to translate their lawyers' documents. These are all in slightly different and convoluted Legalese. 5) A range of products so I can see how much they charge for other things
6) A better chance of them not ripping me off when they know I'm interested.
As an organistation who deals with this all the time, they'd know which are the ideas that are worth a lot to someone, rather than a idea that is close to expiry and has a lot of other patents. Single patent holders like to think their ideas are going to earn them £££ x 10^£££ and try to extort you for even the simplest idea.
For those people who bitch and moan in this topic, I have to ask: How many patents have you actually applied for? Did you think through all the avenues, including actually having to license someone elses idea instead of just complaining about You versus The Man??
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
So when's the next civil war?
... just look out for Orcs^W National Guard on the march, and Nazgul^W Al Qaeda in the air.
... fought very civilly.
That depends upon your definition of "war". Tax evasion is now at epidemic levels, and that only makes sense, since the Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons both want to make government power more focused: much more narrow and intense. As long as you avoid the withering glare of the All-Seeing Eye of the modern Sauron (i.e. the Federal Government), you can pretty much get away with anything you like. You little Hobbitses -- Sssss! -- can scrabble around in Eriador, raising tomatoes and chickens
In short, an environment it being created in which is will be difficult to obtain a welfare check of any sort, but it will be easy to evade all kinds of taxation. This is well within the Neo-Con vision of future government. Any fool can see it. And there's your civil war
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
...why is it legal to transfer patents? Shouldn't the only person allowed to have a patent be the person who invented the item worthy of the patent? If patents are really supposed to benefit the inventors they shouldn't be allowed to be sold or hoarded. Make transfer of patents and copyright illegal, and this situation would not exist.
That just reminds me of this song I heard recently:
Both the parent and g-parent posts ideas are interesting. I thought of another way to limit the power of companies: have a rule that states that the highest salary (all included) cannot be more than N times the lowest one. This way if a company is truly profitable, everyone down to the janitor will flourish. And when a downturn comes, no golden parachute for the guy who is, in most respects, the most likely culprit. I'll let the computation of a fair value of N to real economists.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
One thing that would solve a lot of these problems would be if patents only covered copying of the idea/method in the patent and explicitly didn't block people from coming up with the same idea independantly. It could even be taken a step farther and if someone could prove that say 2 or more others had come up with the same idea independantly then the patent would be revoked on the grounds that it failed the obviousness test.