Slashdot Mirror
An inside look at Intellectual Ventures
A reader writes"Nathan Myhrvold has started a multi-hundred million dollar firm to develop new inventions and patent them. It has remained a very secretive organization, despite recruiting reclusive geniuses and buying up thousands of patents from other companies. Now Business Week has the scoop: "As his cash-rich firm snaps up thousands of patents, fears emerge that it will become a leader in litigation - not innovation..."
Patents and Copyrights are a right to sue over a particular piece of technology or art. You can "invent" the idea on the moon, file a US patent or copyright and then sue anyone (or everyone in the case of the RIAA/MPAA). All a patent or copyright is a "supposedly" clever piece of legalease that allows "LawYERS" the right and process to sue someone else.
An invention is an idea to make everyone's lives easier.
A patent or copyright is an idea to make everyone suffer for it.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
If you RTFA, that's not the business model. It's something they may have to do when patents of theirs (they apply for their own patents as well as buy some up) get infringed and the other party won't agree to license it, but that's no different than any other firm protecting its assets.
Keep in mind that most patent trolls would rather have a license than go to court. This is particularly true in areas where there are many players. Why spend 2-3 years in litigation when you can hit up 5-10 companies for a couple million each?
So I still don't see the difference. The big question is, do the investors / licensees get anything out of IV other than avoiding a lawsuit? By that I mean, do they get ideas and technical information that are actually valuable to their businesses? If they don't, then it doesn't really matter what IV claims their business model is - they really won't be substantively different from a patent troll.
Simply put, a patent in the US gives the owner the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling the patented invention in the US. This is generally accomplished through litigation (although threats of litigation sometimes suffice :). A US patent has no effect outside the US.
Despite what others may tell you, US patent laws are applicable outside of the United States...indirectly. It has nothing to do with lawsuits or payoffs, though. It has to do with US Trade Policy. It is the policy of the US that we require our trade partners to respect the patents of US companies. Now, granted, trade policy is as full of holes as shotgunned swiss cheese, but foreign countries do have to abide by US patent laws if, for no other reason, it is only to give them one more bargaining chip on the table when diplomats discuss new policy.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
Sorry, this exchange from Men in Black just entered my mind as I read this:
Ownership is 9/10 of the law... and owning innovative products and techniques make for lucrative cash cows. It's worked for the pharmaceutical companies for years. A friend of mine is a patent attorney; one of his jobs is to figure out how to re-patent a medication once it reaches the 9 year patent limit. This is to prevent a generic from being manufactured.
It's just sad sometimes.
I know this was meant to be funny, but it brings out a frequently ignored point. The real patent number 3404987 expired in 1985. What it covered (a food preservative) was the exclusive property of Procter and Gamble for a while, but it's now in the public domain, so anybody can use it. Furthermore, the patent gives anybody who cares directions about exactly what it is, how to make it, and how to use it.
The point is that patents expire, and when they do, whatever they covered becomes public domain, guaranteed to be usable by anybody. Furthermore, they often disclose more than they actually covered -- and whatever they disclose is public domain as well.
For quite a while, the patent office didn't accept applications for patents on software at all. That meant (among other things) that when they did start to accept such patents, it was hard to see the benefit because no such patent was going to expire for a long time, and it often looked like they'd all be obsolete long before they expired. That's clearly not the case. There are now quite a few expired patents on truly useful things. Obvious examples include LZW compression and RSA encryption.
Right now we're seeing an explosion in the number of patents on what we currently consider high-tech inventions. These, however, are starting to expire. Somewhere on the order of 1000 patents expire every week -- and that number is rising. In a few years, we can expect to see a couple of thousand inventions come into the public domain every week -- and they'll all include directions about how to build them, put them to use, etc. Without the patent system, or something very similar to it, we could not expect such a thing to happen.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
From what I have seen (applying for patents) is that if the patent application is not totally off the wall, it gets granted, after a cursory inspection. (Perpetual motion machines, and "the wheel" tend to be disallowed, but not much else.)
Due to that, the patent serves as a placeholder (legal record of date and content) in time, until it gets challenged in court. When it gets challenged, then it (might!) be examined on its merits.
Even there, it is a bit of a joke. Juries are not qualified to review a lot of intellectual property issues. Any Slash-Dot reader would be thrown off a patent trial because their technical knowledge would be too great to consider them "impartial" - the court wants ignorance, or a "blank slate" for a juror.
IMHO - A proper "jury of peers" for intellectual property law would be a group of scientist and engineer types. However, that does not happen.
There are a glut of patents out there that will never survive court challenges, even with a jury of non-technical types. A pile of patents on Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cell phone chips all are in direct conflict with each other. Nobody will bother to sort that out.
The alternative is "trade secrets" which was the method we used in the disk drive world. Things changed so quickly there that by the time you got a patent, the product would be obolete anyhow. Product life cycle of a disk drive is 3-6 months, and a patent takes 2-3 years to issue.
http://www.effectiveelectrons.com/
www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
The patent office only checks selected published material for prior art so lots of it gets missed. This is especially bad for software because usually the source code is not openly published making it impossible to review. In theory open source should solve that particular issue but I am not aware that the patent office is even aware of it at a level where it would matter.
Yes, the AIDS pandemic in Africa is all to do with those swarthy Africans and their ravenous sexual appetites...
Of course, according to a UNAIDS overview there are two million children in sub-Saharan africa living with HIV or AIDS; The "vast majority of children who are infected with HIV" are infected via Mother-to-child transmission or through contact with infected blood or unsterilised needles. The WHO estimates that unsafe blood transfusions result in around 5-10% of new HIV infections, and according to Safe Blood for Africa around half of the 6,000,000 blood transfusions which take place in sub-Saharan Africa every year use blood not tested for infectious diseases. Are we to also disregard rape victims? According to estimates from the United Nations Population Fund, around two-thirds of the 60,000 women raped during the course of the Rwandan genocide may have been infected by AIDS. As per the previously cited article, the use of rape as a weapon of war is becoming more common and resources to help reduce infection rates in the immediate onset of rape are stretched.
Of course, education is a crucial factor in stemming the tide of the AIDS pandemic in Africa: programs dedicated to public education on AIDS in Uganda have helped raise awareness of the disease and that country has seen a steady decline in the rate of new infections in the past decade. However, the argument that education is the only route to wiping out the pandemic is terribly vacuous.
Public education projects will consistently fail unless accompanied by a systematic response to institutional weaknesses: Efforts to improve transfusion safety, the state of hygiene and nutrition and, yes, medication. A leaflet on abstinence will not save children infected through mother-to-child transmission, but antiretroviral drugs can help treat their disease and prevent the ravages of AIDS from carrying on from generation to generation.