They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive."
Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong.
And who, or what, do they think they are disrupting? Isn't IV the incarnation of the status quo?
Reading their website feels like reading a politicians...
Geez, why did they even bother? I mean it's plain as day that they know what they're doing. These guys are credible technologists who sold their souls to the devil. It's one thing for some business guy looking for a quick buck to become a patent troll, but it sickens me to my very core to even think about Myhrvold and Detkin and what they are knowingly doing to the industry. Even with all the double-talk, Detkin was still acquiescing in the interview about where "most" of their money comes from. The astonishing thing is how they can't even produce a single example of an inventor whom they helped or a product that was brought to market as a result of their "research".
Man if ever I wanted to believe in Hell, these guys are the ones to inspire me.
Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong.
The Planet Money reporters asked this very question. IV offered bupkis in response, rather sending them on a wild goose chase. I only hope Mhyrvold starts patenting culinary ideas, just to spread the joy.
> We at Intellectual Ventures fundamentally disagree with [the notion that patents have a negative impact on innovation], which flies in the face of centuries of evidence.
About the values of ideas, it is quite evident that most patents' ideas are extremely valuable. The more obvious the idea, the more valuable it is. The artificial scarcity created by the patent system merely shows how valuables simple ideas actually are. Imagine for instance that breathable air becomes scarce. How much would you be willing to pay for it if it meant your life?
And I'm calling out that the article was about software pattents being possibly bad and the response was simply, "no, patents are good" without any real substance.
Some bad things are so obviously good that you don't have to provide substance. Examples: the "protection" of intellectual "property", GDP growth, and even death (which somehow gives meaning to life).
Also, they made a general statement, which we could have dismissed thus: "OK, the patent system is a net good. But _software_ patents are definitely bad [a few decades of overwhelming evidence]". This is generally what we see here an HN.
However, I think we can attack their statements more directly, as "Against Intellectual Monopoly" did. I also think we should do so, instead of just defending our corner of the industry. My current position is, the concept of patent is broken at its core. It simply doesn't work, never did, never will. Hey, I even heard that the first patent systems actually were disguised trade barriers, meant to protect the established, local industry. At that, they did work.
I am surprised that the rebuttal didn't attempt to refute any of the facts in the piece. I know the folks at TAL/NPR take their reporting and fact checking seriously, but I would expect IV to take some weaker part of the piece and try to discredit them.
Instead they are creating a false dichotomy of "patents can be good for inventors, so we can't be doing anything wrong"
They can't be serious with that rebuttal. Intellectual Ventures is a parasite who's allowed to thrive on the innovation and hard-work of others simply because they have identified a loop-hole in an archaic system that was never built for or intended for the abusive nature in which they are exploiting it.
That entire article rests on the assumption that software patents have some value outside of the ability to sue someone else with them or to ward of lawsuits by someone else. They want you to think of a software patent like it's a piece of music or a motion picture. They're just like Netflix or Spotify for patents! I don't know how anyone working for that company can sleep at night.
I personally believe that (unless something is done to change the system), generic software patents will ensure the slow grinding halt of entrepreneurial innovation in the U.S.
Intellectual Ventures is the worst thing to happen to small web businesses and developers... ever.
There are business method patents (Google "State Street Bank").
Michael Jackson attempted to patent some of his dance moves.
There's been discussion of patenting specific sports plays.
There are also discussions and stories looking at fields which work well without (or by ignoring) IP protections: comedians, fashion designers, jazz musicians. Even this bunch of hippie freaks doing something they call "free software", but I don't think that will ever amount to anything.
heres a quote: "Many of the world’s leading technology companies are beginning to recognize that patents are a strategic asset worth billions of dollars. "
At least in the technology companies ive worked for, the strategic value of patents comes purely from the fact that having them can keep frivolous lawsuits at bay.
They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive."
Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong.
And who, or what, do they think they are disrupting? Isn't IV the incarnation of the status quo?
Reading their website feels like reading a politicians...