Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

#111

Post by atlantic »

detaro wrote: post #67
hotdog97 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is that in the alternative timeline where Theranos had a male founder they would never gotten their initial founding. Holmes and Theranos rode the perfect wave built by the media being thirsty for a young, smart (blonde) female. It's so obvious when you look at it in hindsight. Hilariously, even after the total collapse this topic is often taboo. I can't help but feel for sorry for the young women out there…

Theranos's first funding was in 2004, it had already raised $90M at $1B valuation in 2010, and started filling its board with defense bigwigs in 2011. What media wave had happened at that point? From what I've seen, serious media coverage appeared in 2013, when they left "stealth mode" with the promise of the droplet testing, almost a decade after the initial investment.

I think he is referring to the media wave promoting women in entrepreneurship and in STEM courses and jobs, not to the media wave promoting this specific company.

Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

#112

Post by ahel »

hotdog97 wrote: post #73
detaro wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theranos's first funding was in 2004, it had already raised $90M at $1B valuation in 2010, and started filling its board with defense bigwigs in 2011. What media wave had happened at that point? From what I've seen, serious media coverage appeared in 2013, when they left "stealth mode" with the promise of the droplet testing, almost a decade after the initial investment.

I was misinformed (or remembered incorrectly) about the founding/media blitz sequencing. Thanks for informing me.

Then if you're interested in being less wrong, I suggest you to question why you were believing what you said, keeping in mind it was wrong.

Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

#113

Post by keithpeter »

trebligdivad wrote: post #30
sorokod wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are they required to deliver individually? If not I can imagine patents in the spirit of "fake it before you make it" which may be applied against someone else who "made it" while the patent holder still "fakes it" or not even trying to.

You're not required to proof anything; you can (and people often do) patent things that just seem good ideas at the time. If you work for big companies you're strongly encouraged to patent lots, and generally all you have to do is persuade some of your colleagues that it makes sense before then convincing the patent examiners it's new.

Peer review strikes me (as a complete outsider to this world) as potentially quite a good filter. Were your colleagues critical or taking stuff on trust?

Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

#114

Post by verroq »

musgrove wrote: post #84

I wonder why there hasn't been a media outcry like with Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Richard Scrushy, et al. People wanted those scoundrels drawn and quartered, but no one's calling for her head. Is it because of her sex?

Well it only seems fair that she got so much positive media coverage for her start up simply because of her sex.

Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

#115

Post by tzahola »

tzahola wrote: post #57
Brakenshire wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ouch, the quote from Elizabeth Holmes on how the machine worked: > "A chemistry is performed so that a chemical reaction occurs and generates a signal from the chemical interaction with the sample, which is translated into a result, which is then reviewed by certified laboratory personnel."

Reads like basic.wikipedia.org

Errata: simple.wikipedia.org

Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

#116

Post by doopdeedoop »

whatshisface wrote: post #60
jpizzle wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holmes figured out a pathway to violate the trust of old man wisdom. Sounds like she just fished the right old men. One of those that that’s incredibly mature in one aspect of life and threw all her effort in that direction naively ignoring the rest of of what “trust” actually facilitates. Poo poo for the men who were fished... don’t s*!t where you eat.

Many of the board members of Theranos were retired military officials, which seems especially interesting in the context of how Theranos was originally planning on selling the technology that we now know to be non-working to the military. I recall that the sale was originally blocked by low-level military regulators. Holmes may not have scammed as many people as we thought - the window is open on the idea that some o…

Given all that, I have wondered if there was ever any intent to actually develop any working tech at all. How many blood samples did they get scanned with other people's money before being shuttered, and how much is that database worth?

Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

#117

Post by southern_cross »

joewee wrote: post #93
southern_cross wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's relatively young and attractive and perhaps possesses hidden talents. Like maybe the ability to charm the pants off (so to speak) of men - especially older, rich, powerful men who were in a position to help move her ambitions along. Also men who may have been somewhat blinded to obvious warning signs of potential trouble.

Doubtful. If this was common we would have more female startups funded. Just because she is attractive and raised money doesn’t mean she had to use sex to get there. She did go to a Ivy League school which brings a network and credibility in and of itself.

She didn't have to use sex, per se, but merely sex appeal. (It's kind of telling that you immediately went there.) Or maybe even the "You kind of remind me of my daughter/niece/young wife/etc" angle. Maybe even just the "youthful enthusiasm and vigor" angle, or the "female empowerment, breaking the glass ceiling" angle. I also understand that she liked to pass herself off as something of a female Steve Jobs, so there's that. Plus, female-led startups in Silicon Valley are pretty rare, so that in itself is an attention grabber.

Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

#118

Post by joewee »

southern_cross wrote: post #117
joewee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubtful. If this was common we would have more female startups funded. Just because she is attractive and raised money doesn’t mean she had to use sex to get there. She did go to a Ivy League school which brings a network and credibility in and of itself.

She didn't have to use sex, per se, but merely sex appeal. (It's kind of telling that you immediately went there.) Or maybe even the "You kind of remind me of my daughter/niece/young wife/etc" angle. Maybe even just the "youthful enthusiasm and vigor" angle, or the "female empowerment, breaking the glass ceiling" angle. I also understand that she liked to pass herself off as something of a female Steve Jobs, so there…

I’d like to read the story about her. It seems like she was just a great self promoter. Being attractive does help, but that goes for both men and women. We tend to like attractive people, that’s why the big 4 consulting firms are full of young attractive kids recruited because they were jocks or cheerleaders.

My point is that if sex appeal was the core factor in her success, we would have significantly more female founders because almost all investors are men. It’s more likely to me that she was a amazing self promoter who didn’t let reality get in her way, similar to Steve Jobs.

Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

#120

Post by owenversteeg »

_rpd wrote: post #53
owenversteeg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are patents _required_ to teach a reader how to make the invention? That seems like an interesting requirement that I hadn't heard of before, and I've got a patent with my name on it myself.

35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ... > The specification [of the patent] shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same It's the raison d'etre of patents. A time-limited monopoly in exchange for…

Huh. Thanks for including the relevant part of the US Code. I'll be honest, I had no idea it was a requirement. I've read plenty of patents where the patent definitely would not function to let someone build the invention in question. I wonder how strictly this is enforced.
Post reply on HN