Slashdot Mirror
Top Microsoft Execs Moonlighting For a Patent Bully
theodp writes "TechFlash reports that Microsoft bigwigs like Craig Mundie and Bill Gates (when he still worked there) have been secretly moonlighting at Intellectual Ventures (IV), the 'patent extortion fund' run by Bill's pal Nathan Myhrvold. A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that its technologists have been sitting in on IV-sponsored 'innovation sessions,' where their pearls of wisdom were captured and turned into patent applications for Searete, an IV shadow corporate entity. And if all goes well, Searete will soon enjoy exclusive rights to the fruit of the brainstorming, which includes processes ranging from determining and rewarding 'influencers' to treating malaria, HIV, TB, hepatitis, smallpox, and cancer."
If I were a Microsoft investor I might be a little bit annoyed by high ranking employees contributing valuable IP to another company.
Microsoft is not doing its job as looking after its investors interests if it does not pursue the employees involved for this.
It doesn't surprise me that smart, greed oriented, affluent people will make use of their talent for some extra money, at whatever the cost to the public (who are largely now all have-nots).
But what happens when pressure exceeds tolerance? When the have-nots have had the last straw? We throw down the yoke and fight for what is ours, which is that right to evolve, either technologically or financially without interruption from outside constraints.
This is a sticky situation with patents. Patents are really only relevant if you are intending to profit from your invention, which is why I like Open Source. If something is released to the public freely, and is allowed to grow and expand on its own merit, no patent can stop it. If no money is gained, no patent holder can sue for money gained. No patent holder can sue to prevent Open Source, because their act of downloading the software to examine it constitutes agreement with the license.
Even worse case scenario, if some asshat managed to convince a judge that their patent was valid and that an Open Source project was in violation, there really is no recourse.
Now if you find that after years of extensive work, that some asshat is suing you for patent violation, you can contact the EFF and fight it. They will help.
With all the ideas floating around, it only goes so far that someone would argue they had an original thought. I mean that really is a tough sell to any judge. Good luck with that.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
by giving them free meds, and then charging
them via patent royalties ?
I gotta hand it to you, Mr. Gates... Tell everyone you retired from Microsoft so you could free up time to monopolize biotech and a dozen other infrastructure-critical industries in this country... That's pretty clever. Seriously, are you mad because nobody invited you to prom? Is this some kind of Stepford Wives remix? I'm not saying this because I'm trying to be funny or sarcastic (well, mostly not sarcastic)... I really want to know why some people feel a compulsive need to consume or control every resource in the world. These people are like viruses... An ideological cancer, and it's disgusting to watch people who scream "But... MY INNOVATION!!! NOoooooooo!" Whenever someone asks why they're holding all the cards, but once they've got 'em, boy, outsource everything to a bunch of people who still use their hand to wipe their asses with, reduce the research budget to zilch, and then call yourselves innovators. Innovators of what... Slavery? Mass exploitation? Please. Have some originality... Try doing good for a change. If nothing else, it'll confuse the hell out of your detractors.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The New Yorker had an article about this six months ago.
Nobel laureate and Physics Professor Robert B. Laughlin discussed the impact of knowledge increasingly being sequestering from the public. While a certain amount of information is kept secret for legitimate military or security purposes (such as how to build an atomic bomb), more and more knowledge is being restricted for economic reasons, he explained. Many companies (and people) consider ideas to be their intellectual property.
http://www.amazon.com/Crime-Reason-Closing-Scientific-Mind/dp/0465005071
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I think its important to understand that as society enters into the coming replication age, that the phony property right they call "patent" will become genocidal.
As things like nanotech and 3d printing take off, production will shift away from the factory and back into the home. The market will start to center around production and creation services instead of production goods.
The people and industries on the losing side of this model will almost certainly try to turn to a patent royalty model, and will almost certainly use extremely coercive measures to impose their control. Just look at Monsanto and ADM and their heavy handed patent strategies used against farmers. Just look at the RIAA and how they cling to their royalty control model under the guise of "intellectual" property and attacked everyone. Just look at the slave plantations, how the plantation masters envisioned that the future of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton-gin and their "ownership" of slaves to vastly expand the size and production capabilities of their plantations. Just look at how pharmaceutical companies sued African nations in the world court to ban them from buying generic AIDS drugs from India. Just look at how patents in the USA slowed anti-lock brakes and air-bags development by decades as millions died.
Mark my words, if we let them push the lie that patent is a "property" or an "incentive" or "protection", genocidal consequences will not be far away.
This will be addressed in the next advertisement, as rumored all over the internet (starting here).
Jerry Seinfeld: "Bill -- what were you thinking?! You can't give away that secret to the OTHER GUY -- YOU GOTTA KEEP THAT FOR MSFT. What will the shareholders say?? They'll say that wasn't very fair of you, that what they'll say!"
Bill Gates: "They promised no one would find out."
Jerry Seinfeld: "This reminds me of when my Mom used to make me eat chicken soup. She'd say that it's an honest thing to eat chicken soup you paid for with your own money -- AND that's true, today, you know."
Bill Gates: "What?"
Jerry Seinfeld: "You gotta eat chicken soup, Bill. I know a guy who ... here is the spot right here, let's go inside and we can eat, but you gotta do it simple, Bill -- just hand over the money and say the name of the soup. But that's all you can do. So, you hold out your money, speak your soup in a loud, clear voice, step to the left and receive...It's very important not embellish on your order. No extraneous comments. No questions. No compliments."
Bill Gates: "Okay."
Soup Nazi: "YES."
Bill Gates: "Uh... what's good today?"
Soup Nazi: "WAT!"
Bill Gates: "What do you recommend for someone who is having a bad day?"
Soup Nazi: "WAT! THIS NO 20 QUESTIONS. NO SOUP FOR YOU!"
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
These guys think that they're helping... but the people who do the work (I'm thinking of some poor grad student in a lab somewhere) to make a working device go to the patent office and discover that they don't have rights to their own work. It's wonderful.
If you don't (or can't) use a patent, at least make it free. A couple hours "brainstorming" should not trump a few years of hard work.
In before, "he bought the UID on ebay."
And, I wrote the sig myself. Thanks for the compliment! :)
I could embellish on the meaning of the sig, but I'll allow your subconscious to experience the fear which is why it's there in the first place.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
A corporation has fiduciary responsibility to all of the shareholders, not just the biggest ones.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
the idea of ip law is to reward those who innovate. the supposition being, that were there no legal protection, innovators would see the fruits of their intellectual pursuits go to established financial entities instead of themselves
and it is therefore the greatest irony that ip law is now used to suppress true innovation and protect entrenched financial entities. only the rich can afford the legal bully pulpit that ip law enables
ip law needs to disappear
but at best, we can ignore it, and route around it, like the damage it is
death to ip law
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This the kind of innovation they are on about. Can any of these patents be turned into real working devices, without spending thousands of man-hours and huge wads of money. I'm thinking of the NTP v Blackberry litigation. NTP basically bought up some old wireless, paging and email patents, sat on them and them and then waited until Blackberry did all the work ...
'NTP is a holding company created in 1992 to manage certain patents belonging to Thomas Campana'
'on 20 May 1991. Campana filed a patent application for his idea to merge existing e-mail systems with radio-frequency wireless communication networks'
davecb5620@gmail.com
You should never listen to one who has a UID of less than 5 digits.
The purpose if Intellectual Ventures is to harass and intimidate Microsoft competitors, but to do so in a way that Microsoft can keep its hands clean.
Bill Gates and Paul Allen have contributed knowledge and expertise to many 'think tanks' for fee and for free. Why the secrecy here?
Microsoft is a ruthless competitor with a long history of dirty tricks. They didn't invent FUD (Check w/ IBM for that), but they are masters of FUD-foo.
Intellectual Ventures needs to have a large enough portfolio to bring pressure to bear where Microsoft wants that pressure applied. It does not matter to Microsoft that IV succeeds or fails in law suits, as long as Microsoft competitors can be harassed, intimidated and drained of funds.
All of this may be completely legal. Is it unethical? that depends on your ethics. For many people in the business world, if something is not illegal, then it is not unethical to do that something.
Since they released Windows Live OneCare.
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)