Patent Firm Woos Inventors

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Friday April 21, 2006 @07:07AM from the stable-of-thoughts dept.

An anonymous reader writes "C|Net has an article up discussing a new way to win the patent race; hook up with the inventors." From the article: "'They are more concept type of patents. It is a very blue sky kind of thing,' Langer said of the patents that Intellectual Ventures is trying to develop. By contrast, the type of patents that Langer continues to file on his own are typically based on several years of lab research and targeted at very specific ideas, he said. Other researchers working with the firm include Eric Leuthardt, a neurosurgeon with St. Louis' Washington University, and Muriel Ishikawa, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "

43 comments

Patenting the Internet by l33t.g33k · 2006-04-21 07:11 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Awesome! I'm going to hook up with Al Gore and see if I can get a patent on the Internet!

--
My sig is permanently on strike.
1. Re:Patenting the Internet by Nesetril · 2006-04-21 07:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  -1, Patent Troll
  
  --
  Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" - Luke 22:36
2. Re:Patenting the Internet by databyss · 2006-04-21 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  "Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and by one" - Luke 22:36"
  
  See folks, even gods forget to proofread.
  
  --
  Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Stupid Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2006-04-21 07:12 · Score: 0

This gives me an idea! I'll patent Web 2.0 and make millions!
And? by geekoid · 2006-04-21 07:12 · Score: 1

This has been happening for a long time.

Personally I see it as a good thing.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-04-21 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  I think this is a good thing as well... It gets the knowledge out into the public domain and allows engineers to tinker around with the ideas, see if there are any commercially viable applications and license the technology if applicable.
2. Re:And? by aqfire · 2006-04-21 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  What, sleeping with patent holders? I imagine it works for some people...
3. Re:And? by NeutronCowboy · 2006-04-21 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  What has happened for a long time? Patenting ideas? Venture capitalists hooking up with inventors? Money being poured into ideas? Specify.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Heres a patent for an idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-04-21 07:21 · Score: 1, Funny

Some one should patent a website targeting the nerd community that informs them about current news and allows for comments using a moderation system.

Its kind of like /. but it will feature articles that are actually NEWS
1. Re:Heres a patent for an idea! by Hydroksyde · 2006-04-21 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  Then it would be more than out of the ordinary for slashdot to post a decent article... It would be illegal.
Patent troll wants brains, by Anonymous Coward · 2006-04-21 07:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

Why doesn't he just search the Internet for ideas to patent, or look what's being patented in other countries and copy that? That's what most of these trolls do.

Otherwise it makes more sense for a Venture Capital firm that actually wants to make something to consider Trade Secrets as a better (worldwide) way to protect their invention. Especially where disclosing the products doesn't disclose the secrets (software/server side/ internal business processes/ etc.).
1. Re:Patent troll wants brains, by iamlucky13 · 2006-04-21 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  1.) Look for ideas that should work, but you're not smart enough to figure out on your own
  2.) Patent said ideas
  3.) Sit around and wait for someone else to come up with the idea or whisper it in the ear of someone smart and ambitious
  4.) ??? (that is to say, sue the crap out of them) 5.) Profit!
  
  I admit I'm not real up on the details, but that was pretty much my first impression of the lawsuit against Research in Motion for violating "a method to deliver email to a handheld device wirelessly."
Scam Site by pHatidic · 2006-04-21 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

What the hell is this doing on Slashdot? What next, Slashvertising for Russian kiddy porn makers?
Blue sky? by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2006-04-21 07:28 · Score: 2, Funny

'It is a very blue sky kind of thing,' Langer said.

And thats how, my child, the blue sky was patented.
So basically... by nonlnear · 2006-04-21 07:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Intellectual Ventures is a kinder gentler patent troll? Yes, I did RTFA. It's just a puff piece that drops the words "new" and "controversial" to snag the uninformed reader. From the second paragraph:
In the past year or so, Intellectual Ventures has emerged as one of the more controversial companies in the tech industry. The company is filing patents, but also buying patents from defunct companies, independent inventors and others.
One telling excerpt reveals the truth:
The company is filing about 300 patent applications a year, but so far has only been granted one patent. Typically, the company will not seek royalties until the patent is granted. Lawsuits have also not been filed. Some deals may be announced in a few months.
So they haven't started shooting the lawsuit shotgun because they don't have enough ammo yet. And yes, I did read the part about how they work with some big names actively developing their ideas. But these are people who would be inventing anyways. This company is just a convenient way of outsourcing the legalese.

--
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
1. Re:So basically... by kansas1051 · 2006-04-21 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  I agree its ridiculous that the article makes it seem that Intellectual Ventures is some sort of saint because "the company will not seek royalties until the patent is granted."
  
  The author is clearly a bumbling idiot who didn't even bother to research the basics of patent law, as a patent application does not provide its owner with any enforceable rights, so patent applications are never licensed (licensing a patent application doesn't provide a licensee with any rights - there is no such thing as infringement of a patent application). Sometimes applications are sold, but that is clearly not IV's business model.
  
  Its a good thing that the current pendency time at the USPTO for an application is 5-7 years, which should at least temporarily delay IV's trolling.
what to do? by asadodetira · 2006-04-21 07:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's supose you have an interesting idea but don't have the time or resources to file a patent, develop a prototype or put them into practice. What should you do? * Forget about it? * Disclose it into the public domain and not get a penny? * Are there easy ways to get the idea to interested developers in such a way that you would get at least some small royalties if the patent is sucessful? Also there are a lot of scams for would-be inventors out there.
1. Re:what to do? by FudRucker · 2006-04-21 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  i keep my ideas and inventions to myself, let the world do without them...
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
2. Re:what to do? by NeutronCowboy · 2006-04-21 08:01 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Let's supose you have an interesting idea but don't have the time or resources to file a patent, develop a prototype or put them into practice. What should you do?
  I'm sorry - are you actually proposing to patent ideas? Let's see - I've got an idea for a foo widget that I think will solve hunger, bring world peace and slay cancer. It works as follows:
  1) Build foo.
  2) Hunger is solved, world peace is here and cancer is no more.
  
  Should I actually get a patent on this? Can I then sue everybody who builds a gadget that actually will kill cancer or solve world hunger?
  If you are too lazy, incompetent or ignorant to actually prove that your idea actually works (as opposed to having an idea and then suing the people who actually managed to implement your idea), you should not get a patent. Ideas are like assholes - everybody has one, and they all stink. Come back when your idea is an actual product, and then we'll talk. Until then, you'd be nothing but a lazy profiteer trying to get paid for daydreaming.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
3. Re:what to do? by asadodetira · 2006-04-21 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think there might be people with great imagination which can actually contribute to the solution of a problem, but they might not necesarily be able to do all the steps for the implementation themselves. Should they be labeled lazy, daydreamers and dismissed from the technology process. Could their ideas somehow be used?
4. Re:what to do? by thePig · 2006-04-21 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Ok. Point.
  But tell me in case where the idea is there but the capital is not there?
  Not all ideas are 10K ideas.
  Say, it is much more, and the person cannot afford it.
  
  Or that, the person is not a risk-taker, who would be risking big if he
  goes ahead with his ideas (ex - his complete investment goes up in the same) ..
  
  Even going for a basic patent costs anywhere upwards of $3K. Leave international, that is gonna kill you.
  Would you risk that? Many cannot, with the background they are from.
  
  --
  rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
5. Re:what to do? by NeutronCowboy · 2006-04-21 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, their ideas could be used. Have them hook up with people who know what they're doing. Have them work in a team. Once the product is ready, finished and proven to work, the dreamers can receive their share of any product-related royalties. I suspect though that the people who actually did the heavy lifting (like actually getting the idea to work) would balk at an even split.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
6. Re:what to do? by NeutronCowboy · 2006-04-21 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  True. In which case they can hook up with people who have money and then they work on putting a product out. But no product, no patent. And if they are worried about their ideas being stolen by the people with money, tough beans. No product, no patent.
  
  And if they're not a risk taker, even more tough beans. Part of the idea behind a patent is that it rewards risk taking. If you don't take the risk to lose it all, you don't get to enjoy the benefits of a monopoly when you succeed.
  
  Somehow, I get the impression that the entire concept of idea-patents is based around the notion that people are entitled to get money - loads of money - just because they can dream big. The key word here is *entitled*. I've got news for you: there is no such thing as entitlement, and the world is a cruel, hard place. If you can't make it big on your own, it probably is a sign that you should focus on making it small.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
7. Re:what to do? by Overzeetop · 2006-04-21 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Why is it that you must make a fortune or creat a monopoly surrounding your "great" idea. Why not just publish it on the web and let people copy it? Do it anonymously if you're afraid of getting sued.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
8. Re:what to do? by thePig · 2006-04-21 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  I agree quite a bit. Esp. the profiteering and entitlement concept.
  
  But isnt the concept of patent 'fostering innovation' ?
  Wasnt the basic idea behind the patent to 'disallow rich from screwing poor (when they try to bring up an idea)'?
  
  By making the patent costs this high, arent they shooting themselves on their foot?
  Ok, they want to kill off absolute dumb ideas or just *dreams*
  For that this is not the way.
  
  A patent costs quite a bit. Big money companies can easily cough up that money.
  What about the average inventor? He might not be that lucky.
  If you were to look at statistics, I can gaurentee that >75% would be from companies. (ridiculoulsy hig, even considering that company spents more time/money in research)
  
  Also, people who do *not* take too much risks are the ones whose patents/products have a higher chance of succeeding/changing the world.
  Because, they will take into consideration all the factors involved before jumping to such ideas.
  
  This is actually making it a lot worse.
  Now, if you *insists* on products to be made before the patent is to be filed, then I believe that it is going to destroy innovative mentality.
  
  I agree that world is a bad, hard place to live in. But these measures by govt was to decrease this hardness/badness. We shouldnt be killing it off.
  
  --
  rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
9. Re:what to do? by NeutronCowboy · 2006-04-21 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Good points. I'd love to see the costs of filing a patent coming down. Unfortunately, that's unlikely, considering that proper patent examination is an expensive process in and of itself. You either pay for it when you file, or you for it through taxes. Either way, large companies are ahead of the small garage inventor.
  Wasnt the basic idea behind the patent to 'disallow rich from screwing poor (when they try to bring up an idea)'?
  Not the way I see it - or the way it was originally framed in the constitution. The way I see it, the idea behind a patent is to foster innovation by rewarding people who have spent resources developing a new and innovative product. The reward is the time-limited monopoly rent the inventors are allowed to extract when they bring their product to market. The concept of poor versus rich really doesn't come into play very much. It is just occasionally a nice side-effect.
  Also, people who do *not* take too much risks are the ones whose patents/products have a higher chance of succeeding/changing the world.
  I don't know about that. Risk is definitely part of it; even though I do agree that success is largely predicated on preparation, not luck.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Watch out inventors! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-04-21 07:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

FTFA: Lawyers and executives that were asked by CNET News.com to comment on the company have largely asserted that Intellectual Ventures would likely generate its revenue from the legal system, but also admitted they didn't have direct or exact insight into the business plan. (These sources have also requested anonymity.)
Read VERY CAREFULLY and get LEGAL ADVICE before signing anything with these folks. Ask around for a lawyer that SPECIALISES in patents.
Here in Atlanta, there's a magazine issue (Atlanta - I know lameness filter alert!) that comes out once a year that has the attorneys that OTHER lawyers want to hire for THEIR problems.
Ye olde steppes! by Chas · 2006-04-21 07:50 · Score: 1

1: File a patent for "Something that does something"
2: Wait for the inattentive, overworked bastards at the PTO to award it to you.
3: Sue everyone in existence because everything in the universe falls under your patent.
4: Hope someone actually takes you seriously in court.
5: PROFIT!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Why stop there? by USSJoin · 2006-04-21 07:51 · Score: 2, Informative

I mean, why stop with just the inventors? If you truly want to get rich and be happy, I suggest you hook up with as many people as possible.
Stupidity by Serilkath_Montreal · 2006-04-21 07:53 · Score: 2, Funny

who owns the patent on stupidity ?

--
malheureusement la stupidité n'est ni curable, ni mortelle.
1. Re:Stupidity by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-04-21 08:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The evidence indicates it's in the public domain.
2. Re:Stupidity by Savantissimo · 2006-04-21 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  I actually have developed a method for creating highly calibrated, reference-grade stupidity under laboratory conditions. It may have commercial applications, so I won't divulge the details here.
  For less demanding applications beer+TV usually works.
  
  --
  "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
3. Re:Stupidity by Ninjaesque+One · 2006-04-21 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Hard liquor or pure alcohol?
  
  --
  Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
4. Re:Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · 2006-04-22 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  Too much prior art.
Re:Mod this up please by symbolic · 2006-04-21 08:20 · Score: 0

I think that was well-stated. Patents have effectively become a vehicle for speculation based on the sweat of others' brows. It should be illegal.
Just lookin' by Sqweegee · 2006-04-21 08:25 · Score: 1

"Although lawsuits may result, the company primarily exists to devise inventions that can generate new markets." -we don't plan to sue anyone, but if it comes up...PROFIT!
Intellectual Ventures *IS* a Patent Troll by cheesedog · 2006-04-21 08:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Myhrvold continues to maintain that his massive patent holding firm is all about hiring inventors and doing brand new stuff. Yet their own history is not on their side. With 3000 patents in their portfolio already, the young age of the firm, and normal patent pendancy of about 3 years, the only way they could have built this portfolio is by purchasing patents from dead companies or other patent trolls and paper inventors. Myhrvold is continually disengenuous about what they do, and the evidence is not in their favor (they almost spent $15 million on the XML patent portfolio before Novell got it and released it to the commons).
My verdict: Troll to the Xth Degree!
Too late mate :P by Wolfbone · 2006-04-21 09:50 · Score: 1

"I'll patent Web 2.0 and make millions!"
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651, 39253949,00.htm
Taking a place in the value chain... by csorice7 · 2006-04-21 10:06 · Score: 2, Informative

While Intellectual Venture isn't playing its cards out yet, there are rumblings that even insiders at the company aren't quite sure yet whether the best path for what they're developing will be through new companies (as start ups) or in selling their portfolios (e.g. Ocean Tomo's recent auction).

It's an interesting challenge really, companies make lots of money from their engineers/technical staffs while those same companies are 'globalizing' their staffs thus releasing the workers from any ties back to those companies. Nathan is really tapping into this as an advantage (for himself, of course).

While playing the patent as a game, and creating useless patents, shouldn't be a goal, I wonder just how long it will be before all of these cool 2.0 collaboration tools and an open, innovative community figures out that there's a way to be a part of the value chain and not just at the end as a consumer.

(hint, hint...)

--
Working to make ideas into reality. www.i4e.com