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

31–40 of 124 posts

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

#31

Post by Yoric »

pjc50 wrote: post #10

1) Competing engineers are often advised not to read patents, because it can result in treble damages in infringement claims: https://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2016/06/supreme-court-ru... 2) Patents are really hard to read 3) The difference between something that looks plausibly like it might work when written down and something that actually works can be hundreds of millions of dollars of bugfixing.

> 2) Patents are really hard to read

I second that. In a previous life, I had to read and understand a few dozens of patents. Imagine page after page of buzzwords, unjustified claims, approximate logic, vague and meaningless sentences, clearly designed to be write-only.

In my experience, reading cutting-edge research papers in domains with which I'm barely familiar is so much easier.

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

#32

Post by Yoric »

dctoedt wrote: post #27
ericseppanen wrote: post #15

Is 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…

Good to know. I've known a CEO who deliberately altered all the patents from his startup to put his name (and only his name) as inventor, rather than, say, people who actually any clue what the patent was about.

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

#33

Post by jdietrich »

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.

There are thousands of patents for perpetual motion machines. An invention must be novel, useful and non-obvious to be patentable, but it doesn't actually have to work.

https://patents.google.com/?q="perpetual+motion"

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

#34

Post by Brakenshire »

danso wrote: post #25
bagels wrote: post #16

People 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: http://archive.is/BGtRJ One of the compelling things the Blawg author did was note this passage in the New Yorker st…

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."

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

#35

Post by jccooper »

sorokod wrote: post #26
jdietrich wrote: post #12

The 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.

All the modern patent has to do is look plausible. It doesn't has to have been reduced to practice, or be practical, or work, or even obey the laws of physics. (Though they will catch baldly impossible things like perpetual motion.) It just has to be novel, and have the right paperwork.

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

#36

Post by [deleted] »

sorokod wrote: post #26
jdietrich wrote: post #12

The 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.

[deleted]

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

#37

Post by PeterisP »

cimmanom wrote: post #2

Furthermore, if she's got patents on these processes, can she wield them against anyone who tries to implement them successfully ?

It's worth noting that patents cover a particular method and not its result.

If the method would work in general, then yes, the inventor with the patent can wield them against anyone who implements that method - even if the inventor wasn't able to build the apparatus due to expense or difficulty; that's part of the original goal of patents, so that the inventor can fundraise for building the device without the funders just building it themselves after being convinced that it will work.

If the method is bullshit and can't be used to achieve the intended goal, then the patent can't be used against someone who succeeds, since they would succeed with a substantially different method that's not covered by the patent.

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

#38

Post by lopmotr »

Somebody has to do the legwork to dig up problems. That's what journalists are for, so it's not surprising a journalist found it. There are "obvious" problems everywhere that nobody has found because nobody has looked. Such as bugs in open source software or a recent case in New Zealand where the government misread a report and gave incorrect advice about save levels of meth in houses occupied by meth users. That mistake created a whole industry of meth testers and decontaminators for something which suddenly turned out to be harmless after-all. Government housing tenants were forced out of their houses and made to pay the cost of decontamination. Landlords lost money having to clean up "dangerous" contamination - which could cost $10,000s to replace plasterboard but still nobody checked the source of that guidance to find the mistake.

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

#39

Post by wmf »

sorokod wrote: post #26
jdietrich wrote: post #12

The 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.

That's what Lemelson did with his submarine patents; it made him a lot of money.

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

#40

Post by kens »

pjc50 wrote: post #10

1) Competing engineers are often advised not to read patents, because it can result in treble damages in infringement claims: https://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2016/06/supreme-court-ru... 2) Patents are really hard to read 3) The difference between something that looks plausibly like it might work when written down and something that actually works can be hundreds of millions of dollars of bugfixing.

> Patents are really hard to read

There are a few patents that I've found informative and useful to read: Texas Instruments' calculator patents from the 1970s, the ENIAC patent, Astrolite, and Autotune. These are the rare patents where they actually explain things in detail, it reads like it was mostly written by an engineer rather than lawyers, and I know more after reading the patent than before. (Just want to give some recognition to the rare non-awful patent.)

Edit: I looked at a few of the Holmes patents. I'd put them in the awful category. Hundreds of pages of worthless discussion, followed by claims that are semi-incomprehensible, seem obvious, and have little to do with the earlier hundreds of pages. They have lots of nice graphs and diagrams though.

Post reply on HN