Slashdot Mirror
Nathan Myhrvold Live Q&A
Last week we announced that co-founder and CEO of Intellectual Ventures, Nathan Myhrvold, had agreed to do a live Q&A. Earlier today we posted a few of his answers, but now's your chance to hear it directly from him. Mr. Myhrvold will be answering your questions below until 12:30 PDT. Please keep it to one question per post so everyone gets a chance.
Update: 04/03 19:41 GMT by S : 12:30pm PDT has come and gone, and Mr. Myhrvold has to move on. Thanks for the answers! Here's a link to his user page if you'd just like to read his responses.
In your responses earlier today, you said, "The patent office has had funding issues. In recent years Congress has raided the patent office fees and taken them to spend elsewhere rather than let them be used to improve the patent office."
How do you think additional funding could be best spent? A friend of mine is a patent lawyer for a private firm, and he tells me they have a massive advantage over the USPTO workers because they're highly specialized and they work for companies who can afford to hire talent. Would boosting USPTO salaries help? Do they need better infrastructure?
How did your dinosaur sound project turn out?
Mr. Myhrvold:
I have some thoughts on your patent activities, but a) it's complex, and b) probably nothing you haven't heard before or that would suddenly make you repent and start your life over ;)
So instead, I'd like to hear about cooking. I enjoy cooking, but I realize I'm a duffer, and keep finding small improvements from random sources (YouTube, relatives, friends, books) of the "why didn't I think of that?" variety. Is there any advice that you think the average non-cook should hear based on your non-conventional approach?
Would you rather fight 100 duck sized horses, or one horse-sized duck? And Why?
Overclockers
How could the Modernist innovations described in your cookbook have possibly been developed without strong intellectual property protections for cuisine?
Why do you think Slashdot chose you over other for a live Q&A?
As patents become more complex and arcane (or at least about inventions that are more complex and more arcane), do you think we can expect the judicial system to accurately evaluate their validity? There have been cases recently where justices and jurors have clearly been in over their head with regard to understanding how patented software claims work, and software isn't getting any simpler. Hardware, too, is becoming difficult for hobbyists to comprehend, yet we expect a few weeks of testimony to make people competent to judge patent validity. If you don't think it's a problem at this point, do you think it will be in the future?
any comment on developments regarding the geoengineering patent?
What operating systems do you have installed on your personal computers?
sudo make me a sandwich
Given how much you deal with new inventions, what tech do you see taking the world by storm in the next 5-10 years? Will wearable computing make as big of a mark as smartphones? How about autonomous cars?
Since you've lived in both the food world and the software patent world, can you draw any parallels between cooks and their recipes and software engineers and their code WRT IP law and tradition?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
In an answer to a previous question, you expressed concern that inventors are not fairly paid for their work because most, if not all, of the profit from inventions goes to the companies that employ them. This concern seems to be valid insofar as most people who are skilled in science and technology work for companies or universities, which generally require employees to sign "assignment of invention" agreements. To the extent that IV is intended to free inventors from the need to "sign away" the economic value of their inventions in exchange for a steady job, how does IV plan to change this traditional bargain? Under your vision of an "economically ideal" situation for patents, would inventors work for IV as opposed to traditional employers? Would IV fund independent research by inventors in exchange for a fraction of subsequent patent licensing fees? I'd like to know what concrete arrangements you have in mind.
Have you reflected on what the IT industry would be like if companies in the '60s and '70s (IBM, GE, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc) had spent as much attention filing for and enforcing patents as is increasingly customary in the industry today? Xerox could've blocked Apple and Microsoft from implementing GUIs, GE and/or Bell Labs could've prevented anyone from implementing a hierarchical filesystem that treated all files as linear byte streams, etc.
any thoughts on how to make mobile info tech less addictive? We know it's constantly tickling the reward system, and people increasingly feel significant anxiety when separated from their devices. Do you see any reason at all to think we're not just inventing the ultimate conditioning tool? Particularly once we go to continuous input via say gGlass.
According to your wikipedia page you like nature photography. Have you ever considered embracing your inner Thoreau and giving it all up to live a simpler life in the woods?
What would your opinion be on a system whereby patent applicants would have to pledge a certain amount of money (possibly via escrow) that is paid out to anyone (either the patent office or a third party) that finds prior art that invalidates the patent? The amount of money would rise as more and/or broader claims are added to the patent application.
Right now, potential victims of invalid patents have to choose between ignoring the patent and hoping they'll never get sued/threatened, or preemptively have to spend (less than in case it would come to a court case) time and money on finding evidence to invalidate patents that should not be or have been granted in the first place. It's a lose/lose situation.
Donate free food here
Any possibility of a cookbook relating to the science behind baking? And if you're already working on one, any rough year for an ETA?
seven digit /. UID, must be some n00b
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Why do I keep on misreading his company name as: Intellectual Vultures ?
I read your answer earlier but it left some unanswered parts. Are they a spin-off company? Did their employee have any previous relationship with IV? Did they approach you requesting that specific patent? How did they end up buying it?
Any advice for those of us that are tired of trolling slashdot and want to take it to the next level by trolling patents?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
How do you suggest an independent or freelance software developer would ensure that the code (s)he writes does not infringe on any patent? Or more generally: how do you see a solution for the legal uncertainty caused by software patents for software developers? (any software developers really, since it's not like large companies check for infringements -- after all, it opens them up to treble damages for willful infringement in case they considered a patent and wrongfully concluded it didn't apply).
In case you would want to answer that this applies to any branch of industry, does that mean that you do not believe that independent software development should continue to thrive? Most other branches of industry require huge capital investments, but software development is one of the few high tech fields where an individual has no need for anything beyond a computer and an internet connection to run a successful business -- as long as (s)he is not confronted by threats of patent infringement.
Donate free food here
What if SlashDot announced a mandatory "all hands meeting" to its readership? I think it would feel about the same as the response to this article.
One of the goals of your organization seems to be commoditization of innovation itself in order to free inventors from having to implement or otherwise directly participate in a complete commercial pipeline in order to monetize their inventions. In order for commodity markets to function well and on a large scale, however, there need to be well-understood ways to classify, quantify, and otherwise understand the commodity in question such that it is possible to price the commodity and thus increase accessibility to capital markets. Do you think it might be possible to identify key attributes of innovations in general in order to make invention valuation more reliable and accessible to capital markets? Is the nature of invention such that it would require unique/yet-to-be-developed mechanisms to create such a market or do you see Intellectual Venture's current business model as the ideal?
Mathan myvold is a troll and a liar and should die. fuck him and his dog gates. they can all rot in hell for the amount of troll legal action against actual inventors. they didnt and dont invent anything, they troll and thats all they do. troll troll troll.