Slashdot Mirror
Does Recent Goodwill Undo Years of Patent Trolling For Intellectual Ventures?
Intellectual Ventures was first founded in 2000, and since then has acquired an amazing portfolio of patents and "intellectual assets." Even the most conservative of estimates, indicate over 30,000 purchased patents and applications, and over 2000 inventions developed in-house. It's a rather staggering amount of intellectual property for a company that itself does not produce any products.
In the process of collecting the aforementioned patents and inventions, Intellectual Ventures has made itself into a grim spectre haunting the tech industry, garnering it's share of bad press over the years, including a segment on This American Life on NPR, which goes so far as to compare Intellectual Ventures to the mafia, engaging in an IP protection racket. CNET describes the company as having a split personality, in which one part resembles a think tank, where people both create and refine new ideas to solve problems large and small, another part is an "altruistic do-gooder," while the final part is the patent-troll side they've been showing us previously.
During the tour of the company, devices are shown off that include everything from a laser-wielding bug zapper to a microscope for early malaria detection. Intellectual Ventures purports to represent the inventors behind these devices and more, while preparing to spin them off into new companies. One such earlier device, a new nuclear reactor, made headlines again recently as Bill Gates has begun investing in it. A second company has also launched recently. Kymeta, which is also funded in part by Gates, aims to improve wireless broadband access using better satellite connections.
While the inventions that are showcased have a serious cool factor about them, there's still the underlying notion that the invention side of the business is funded by their patent-trolling activities. While no one can really fault advances in fighting malaria or polio, for every new idea they have come up with, there are hundreds of shell companies, such as the infamous Lodsys, who do little but stifle innovation in the industry.
Because Intellectual Ventures and its shell companies have no actual products of their own, they're well-suited to the rigors of patent litigation. Most smaller companies aren't designed or prepared for a patent war. When a company is sued for violating one of Intellectual Ventures' patents, that company now has to divert resources away from making its products, and focus on defending its right to make those products. Just the discovery phase of a lawsuit can bring normal work to a halt, or at the least greatly impede forward progress. Since a company like Intellectual Ventures or one of its shell corporations, is prepared for the suit from the beginning, and has nothing to halt production on, they're much better poised to handle the ongoing work of a court case, and begin the case with a distinct advantage.
So after twelve years, 30,000 pieces of various forms of intellectual property, 1300 patent-holding shell corporations, and a network of 3000 inventors, only two companies have been spun off from Intellectual Ventures. That seems like a rather high price to pay, and a recent Forbes story seems to agree. That doesn't even take into account the damage that has been to industry as a result of the numerous patent cases.
In a recent response to company criticism, Intellectual Ventures has been advertising for a newly-created position, the vice president of Global Good. It seems to me that before hiring another suit, they could easily pull from their pool of around 3000 inventors, and have a few dozen or so just say what their potential products are, and how Intellectual Ventures has helped them on the road to market. This wouldn't exonerate Intellectual Ventures from their patent trolling by any means, but it would be a first step in the right direction. CNET wasn't able to talk to any inventors at length during their tour. Most of the images of inside Intellectual Ventures are of empty rooms, where employees either weren't currently working, or were required to be removed entirely. This renders it awfully hard to put a human face on any possible good that may be going on inside Intellectual Ventures. Reading through past Intellectual Ventures press releases doesn't produce any either. What it does provide, however, is a long list of companies that have been forced to partner with or license rights from Intellectual Ventures. Despite any good intentions they may assert, their track record speaks otherwise. Even if you apply the adage that one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet, they've broken tens of thousands of eggs, and made only a few omelets.
Actions speak louder than words.
Then that must be how prisoners get out of jail... o.O
Don't doubt the depths of the evil here. The kind that moralises about the good it does.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Even if they end up doing good the ends do not justify the means.
They are scum and need to pay for their crimes. They possibly caused immensely more economic damage.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If they actually do something useful and it actually helps others, yes.
Until then, they are a worthless abuser of the patent system by having nothing to show for any of said patents.
I can think of about a hundred things that can help millions of lives right now and could go over to some poor country to help. (even without multiple millions in revenue)
But groups like these hold people like us back because we'd end up having OUR lives ruined because they want to be the only ones who can help anybody.
If you aren't with them, you are a personal insult to their company and they HAVE done everything to destroy those who oppose them.
Reminds me of Edison. Both are dicks and will/did hurt untold millions directly and indirectly at the expense of research.
So the other thing I'd like to bring up is the This American Life question of IV as to who they've actually helped. And they kept saying the same case: Chris Crawford. But of course, they couldn't get a hold of Crawford, they found out that IV no longer managed it and, in fact, Crawford is in litigation with IV. So basically the one thing that they offered as proof of their purpose was bunk. And then, of course, they stopped talking to This American Life.
Even if you apply the adage that one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet, they've broken tens of thousands of eggs, and made only a few omelets.
Yeah, Microsoft omelets. It's a self-serving shell company that sues the shit out of everyone and forces others into agreements or litigation. They can't even offer up one person that will sing their praises of helping them successfully manage their IP portfolio. And that, good friend, is why they're compared to the mafia.
... even if they can put a dent in those problems while lining their own pockets I'd be impressed. Sadly, the simpler explanation is that they have a very large portfolio and some of these tackle very serious diseases and by holding them up they can justify their lawsuits and patent trolling that is driving the industry backwards!
A "step in the right direction"? You'll excuse my skepticism until I see some results for malaria, polio, and HIV
My work here is dung.
Was Intellectual Ventures in the book "Freakanomics"?
I don't have access to that book anymore but I seem to remember that a very IV type company was in that book because of their anti-global warming idea.
Was Intellectual Ventures in the book "Freakanomics"?
I don't have access to that book anymore but I seem to remember that a very IV type company was in that book because of their anti-global warming idea.
Uh I think it was Superfreakonomics and they even brag about it. I would like to clarify that it's not 'anti-global warming idea' so much as a patent on how to engineer the temperature by pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to cool the planet.
My work here is dung.
Just because a serial killer can smile even while hacking people up, doesn't mean he/she's not a murderer.
I don't care if they stand in the heavenly courts and fart choir music, the ends don't justify extortion to fund their business model.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Have they gotten anything into production? Proof is in the pudding. Either they have, or it's all bullshit.
They are a classic monopolist. They use government regulations (patents) to gain monopoly control and extort payments from everyone else. In order to assuage their guilt, they develop some "good causes". Of course, the good causes they choose are idiosyncratic and based on their own value system and not necessarily something that society would have done with the money had they been allowed to keep it in the first place.
Andrew Carnegie is an earlier example of this. He was a ruthless businessman who built a steel monopoly and benefited greatly from government regulations (which he tailored to his needs) and used unsavory methods to put his competitors out of business. He also ruthlessly exploited his workers (see: Homestead strike). Later in life he felt Christian guilt and gave away his money (I guess he figured out he couldn't take it with him) to libraries, schools, churches (he was very big into church organs).
I personally think it is better to have society as a whole determine what to do with resources rather than have government empower individuals to amass great wealth and have those individuals spend it on their pet projects.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
An other case of anyone who disagrees with your view point must be evil.
Companies/People/Real Life. Isn't cut dry Good and Evil, we all do things that other will not like. Some things that we do and think as Good, is considered as Evil by someone else. Sometimes things we feel bad about doing, really isn't a big deal.
Sometimes people change, they admit they were wrong, and change their actions, most of the time they will stubbornly stick by their views no matter what is actually the evidence is. Sometimes people will change their minds on a whim based on what some other charasmatic person says.
There was a time where the majority of Slashdot posts was praising Cloud Computing, then RMS made a rant about it, over night the majority changed their mind. Or the Republicans who initially sported a national health plan much like the Affordable care Act (Obomacare), but because it was enacted by the democratic party they all reject it.
Sometime people change their actions not because they believe in it, they just know they can't get away with it.
My motto is if the company is doing something good now, we should support their good deeds and reinforce good actions. The alternative is them making the realization well there isn't anything I can do to get people to like me, so I will just do what I did before where I just made a ton of money.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"Pardon me while I laugh."
Just because a troll does something nice once in awhile doesn't mean they'll be nice all the time.
What is with all these stupid questions?
Goodwill doesn't erase anything. The fact of the matter is, in the future, they are going to continue suing people for silly software patents. The only way to 'erase' the past is if they will change, and stop suing people for silly patents.
Anything less is like going back to an abusive boyfriend because he gives you flowers inbetween being abusive.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines speaks for itself.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Yes. Ha! I just broke it, too!
They're still what they were designed to be. They're just investing in P.R. now. Next.
You're only as good as you're last screw up.
This is only asking the girl if she forgives her boyfriend for cheating, or worse.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Lots of companies struggle quite a bit to get proper branding and good press. It's really really hard, and often difficult for executives to understand the investment effort it requires. This leaves us in a pickle with Intellectual Ventures, because it's hard to even understand whether they are the "good guys" they purport to being.
Maybe it would make sense for them to state some policies on what they will and will not pursue when it comes to their IP enforcement team (trolls). If they really want to push for innovation, they could make a statement like that they will never pursue use of their patented mechanisms in GPL-compatible software.
I mention the GPL rather than OSI-approved because the GPL's clauses prevent closed-source derivatives, which ensures profitability of salable goods derived from such things. This model was quite successful (read: profitable) for Qt (before Nokia relicensed it LGPL).
Permitting and encouraging Free Software stimulates innovation. It would likely also lead to derivative patents, which (assuming they share them appropriately) would be mutually beneficial to the F/OSS developer and to Intellectual Ventures.
Of course, this is assuming software patents aren't stricken down, which would be better for everybody except Intellectual Ventures.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
To answer the question. No. You want goodwill? _Undo_ the damage that was done first. Release the patent war chest to the public domain. Stop the corporate shell game. Behave well for the next 5 or 10 years. Then we can perhaps change our opinion.
What a fitting name!
The hypocrisy here is staggering. You have ruthlessly gamed the patent system to the detriment of everybody, now you want us to congratulate you for "doing good"?
Presumably this is a PR exercise attempting to slow patent reform.
Short leash. (In case of emergency, brandish at Ruprecht the genital cuff.)
...is still a troll.
If Hitler contributed $5 to the Boy Scouts, is he still not a monster
E
* Yes I invoke Godwin's law.
Not that Intellectual Ventures deserves it, but the concept of "Forgive and Forget" is ridiculous to me. Such concepts have an evolutionary advantage only if the minds using them can't strategize logically while assessing the full scope of past events. When I'm asked for forgiveness I always say: "There is no need. You can never undo the past, therefore I don't hold grudges." I can't forget, so it would be dishonest to the other or myself were I not to decide my future actions based on the whole of my experience.
Emotion and intuition are great for living life from one small moment to the next -- These are amazing compressed decision engines used best when trust is warranted or time is short. However, It's not necessary to forgive if one takes the time to approach significant matters rationally instead of emotionally.
Long answer: Atone for your transgressions, then ask again.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Intellectual Ventures has done harm to a lot of people who are actually making things to benefit the public, and what do they have to show for it? Flashy tech demoes and dubious press releases.
Want goodwill? Why not start by doing something good? You get goodwill when malaria rates are actually impacted by the fancy laser shows, when carbon emissions actually go down because of the nuclear reactors. Not before.
It still wouldn't excuse all the damage caused by the patent trolling. But, hey, the robber barons managed to reverse their reputations with their philanthropy, and Bill Gates now has a legion of supporters who excuse his past sins with his current generosity, so I'm sure Intellectual Ventures can at least appear to be good.
Have a nice time.
What goodwill would that be? They haven't actually DONE anything yet. They have made press releases that say they have plans to do things that may lead to things that could possibly result in something that's good (or at least not bad). Meanwhile, there's no reason to believe those things wouldn't have already happened if they had gotten out of the way.
The idea that "Intellectual Property" exists is illegal, plain and simple. It needs to be resolved in court (and should have been over 15 years ago), and the only reason it has not been there is because people are making a metric ass load of money suing each other. Courts make money, Law firms make money, and businesses that "win" make money. It's all ILLEGAL!
Stop and think about how backwards, draconian, and medieval the concept is. Ideas are not free and only certain people can have them? Because you think up an idea, you can own the idea and nobody else can implement an idea that they thought up just like yours? Even when technology does not exist, you can own ideas that you pay people to sit and dream up? Really, a patent on something currently impossible? Yes folks, that is the current system.
I'm all for copyright laws, assuming they are permissible to everyone and fairly legislated. 100 year copyrights are not fairly legislated are they? Trademarks sure, those can be for a lifetime assuming again that common sense applies. A logo can be a trademark, a string of text can not be a trademark.
To continue the belabor the point of how fair a "Patent Troll" is, is completely ludicrous. If a judge ever rules that patents can be granted on ideas, they need to be fired from their jobs and judges need to be place on to benches that have knowledge of the words and spirit of the US Constitution, and works for the interests of Society and not a select few (including their own benefit).
Nothing changes if we continue on the same path. The system as it sits stifles innovation and ingenuity and causes harm to everyone. Tell me how the Honeywell vs. Nest law suit and C&D order has helped anyone but Honeywell? This is explicitly against the spirit of the Laws providing Patents.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
OK, so they are like "Oh, we're not patent trolls, it's intellectual capital". Yeah, well, guess what, the spammers who insist their spamming is just "bulk commercial e-mail" are spammers. You are patent trolls.
So, you saw a showcase of inventions while you were there. So, did you find out, was Intellectual Ventures ACTUALLY involved in any way whatsoever in these, or were these nuclear reactor, lasers, etc., ALREADY invented and Intellectual Ventures just found out about them and sued the inventors? (This is my guess!) And, by the way guys at Intellectual Ventures, hiring a head of goody two shoes does not negate your past deeds. If you truly are going to quit being patent trolls and do good, that's fabuluous . But, those of us who know about patent rolls to begin with don't get our news from talking heads, we won't be fooled by you just giving one job position a feel-good name.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/387409/slash-is-everywhere
I'll agree to stop hating them for 2-4yrs if they produce a consumer version (less than $200) of their laser mosquito killer... every year they don't though my offer decreases in span of hate absolution by six months finally settling at a max of 2yrs. -j
No. You didn't.
At this point in my desperate attempt to explain why I hate the notion of "intellectual property" as much as I do, I can only applaud Intellectual Ventures for their work. Their business model seems to be to "abuse the system" but this is a system I'm sure many of us have little love for.
God speed gentlemen! Fuck it all up and make a fat pile of cash for yourselves and your lawyers as you go. Force those intelligent and dedicated inventors and designers to lose their jobs. Restrict innovation worldwide as much as you possibly can. Do what must logically follow under these circumstances. I don't care about the billions of dollars wasted every year anymore. I just want, once before I die, to be able to say "I TOLD YOU SO" to all the bastards who argue in favour of intellectual property.
Buy the public consciousness with a few baubles while continuing to drain away the vitality of the economy. They have learned much from the masters at the B & MGF.