I have like, a dozen patents, and I'm nobody special. Some companies, like the one I worked for, have a real culture around patenting anything and everything that seems even halfway interesting. It's all about volume. None of my patents are BS, they're just rather mundane and very limited in scope. I suspect it's the same case for Holmes.
Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
21–30 of 124 posts
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#22I think a big part of it is that people wanted it to be true.
The idea is very compelling. Who wouldn't want it to be true/possible? And it's obvious to anyone how valuable such a thing would be.
Plus... Young woman founder/CEO (& paper billionaire as a result). Dropout from Stanford. Silicon Valley. On the cover of magazines. Big names on the board. Association with Bill Clinton, etc.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#23This will sound cynical but many patents are not for IP protection as much as for showing other people that you're a real tech company. Investors and customers are both groups that might be impressed by your having a patent.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#24Furthermore, if she's got patents on these processes, can she wield them against anyone who tries to implement them successfully ?
"having" a patent is different from "assigning" a patent. I haven't read through all of them but having your name on a patent is more a prestige thing and very difficult to monetize. There are exceptions to this, however. Whoever ends up liquidating Theranos will be in a position to make a call with licensing and enforcement, assuming, of course, they don't let the patents lapse (which is probably a shorter timeframe…
I'm not a patent lawyer, but I have several patents. From my standpoint, the prestige thing is of potential value because it means I'm capable of coming up with inventions that someone is willing to spend tens of $k's to patent. In other words, my idea put a smile on some manager's face.
It's also an alternative to peer-reviewed journals for "publishing" your ideas.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#25People were skeptical of Theranos' claims before the WSJ expose from Oct 15, 2015. Here are some examples that predate that article: http://www.businessinsider.com/scientist-skeptical-thranos-b... http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-elizabeth-holmes-t... This discussion from 2013 talks about Theranos doing full blood draws which they wouldn't need to do if their technology worked: https://forums.studentdoctor.n…
I brought this up in a comment downstream, but it was a Dec. 17, 2014, blog post by the now defunct Pathology Blawg that arguably led to the downfall of Theranos. The Blawg author was contacted by someone feuding with Holmes at the time. The Blawg author eventually contacted the WSJ reporter in secret:
One of the compelling things the Blawg author did was note this passage in the New Yorker story [0]
> Holmes also pointed me to a pilot study published by Hematology Reports, an online-only peer-reviewed journal; she is listed as a co-author. The report, released in April, concluded that Theranos tests “correlated highly with values obtained” from standard lab tests.
He looked up that journal, which he had never heard of before, and found that it was an Italian company that charged $500 to publish. He found the Theranos study [1], which actually did contain specific scientific detail, but not the good kind:
> So, to summarize, the study to which Ms. Holmes referred that showed Theranos “correlated highly” with standard lab tests looked at one biomarker (C-reactive protein) in a grand total of six patients and was published in an online-only Italian journal.
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/15/blood-simpler
[1] http://www.pagepress.org/journals/index.php/hr/article/view/...
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#26The patents don't really tell you whether the Theranos technology actually works. They cover small parts of the overall system - fluid handling, centrifuge configurations, software processes and so on. It's quite common for companies to use a mix of patents and trade secrets to protect their technology. Filing for patent protection is a tradeoff - you gain the exclusive right to use that invention for 20 years, but t…
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.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#27Is it legitimate to have a CEO add their name to a patent? My impression is that the "inventor(s)" have to be the people who actually came up with the idea.
> My impression is that the "inventor(s)" have to be the people who actually came up with the idea.
(Inactive) patent attorney here. Your impression is correct (for the U.S.; I can't speak to other places): ALL "co-inventors" MUST be listed as inventors, and ONLY they may be listed. A "co-inventor" is someone who contributes to the "conception," i.e., the complete mental picture, of the subject matter of at least one claim in the patent application. [0]
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#28Theranos had great PR.
You have to understand that most tech news places question the substance of most press releases. Especially if they are medical.
For example, no-one questions AirBnB's core buisness model: listing holiday lets. There is literally nothing+ new about airBnB. Uber is the same, its a taxi service that is subsidising users.
Babylon health is another example, which has yet to really break mainstream news.
They have run trails for replacing NHS 111, They make a lot of noise about using AI and other such bollocks, but actually its a decision tree with a nice natural language system infront.
What they don't say in the blurb is that its less effective than the current telephone system. Parts of it are deemed unsafe by their own medical staff, and there is no rigid medical testing to prove it's safety.
None of this matters yet because its an app, and it has "AI".
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#29Thomas Edison freely admitted most of his 1,093 US patents were for inventions that would never have worked. Patenting a completely ridiculous and impossible idea is quite straightforward if you know the system and have the money and reputation. Journalists are notoriously bad at technical due diligence, but the fact is even trained scientists and engineers can be duped, particularly when access is limited. Having be…
Patenting inventions that don't work is a great way to waste a lot of money on patent attorneys and patent office fees. Worldwide patenting can get even more ridiculously expensive.
There are some really nutty patents out there.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#30The patents don't really tell you whether the Theranos technology actually works. They cover small parts of the overall system - fluid handling, centrifuge configurations, software processes and so on. It's quite common for companies to use a mix of patents and trade secrets to protect their technology. Filing for patent protection is a tradeoff - you gain the exclusive right to use that invention for 20 years, but t…
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.