I've got a patent on a fusion reactor... If my tech doesn't work I wish someone would let me know and save me the trouble of all the hard work to build it :)
Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
61–70 of 124 posts
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#62I've got a patent on a fusion reactor... If my tech doesn't work I wish someone would let me know and save me the trouble of all the hard work to build it :)
Conversely, If the tech does work, I hope someone infringes me and saves me the trouble of all the hard work to build it ;)
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#63The 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.
This actually happened to Theranos itself. In the book (Bad Blood by Caryiyou), there is this old genius medical guy who is in a family fued with Elizabeth's family, he hears about Theranos early on in their development, thinks his way through the machine they are probably building, and decides to file a patent on sending remote diagnostic information to doctors. The entire point of his patent was so that Theranos would have to pay him - and he did it purely because he didn't like Elizabeth's family. He never built anything, never made a single swipe of a soldering iron.
She was able to defeat him by getting better lawyers. The book says she was paranoid, but also shows that this is kind of the environment she was in. This kind of abuse of the patent system is normalized within those vaunted halls of power and wealth. Big companies all have their portfolios of questionable patents and the lawyers sort it out in court. She wanted to build her portfolio just like anyone else in that situation. She was obsessed with Steve Jobs... people forget all the crazy patent lawsuits he was involved in, going back to the 80s.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#64Theranos 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…
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 creating actually useful innovations.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#65Inspectors don't really concern themselves with verifying that an invention works. That would be insanely expensive. It's on the inventor to make something work so that they can profit. Although I do think inventors should have some burden of proof that they're effectively using their patent to provide a service to the market that justifies their monopoly protection.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#66I 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.
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.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#67Theranos 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…
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.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#68Unfortunately one major flaw of the patent system is that you don't have to produce a working prototype to get a patent.
The United States had a working requirement only between 1832 and 1836, and only for foreigners.
So for the most part, if you can think it, you can patent it.
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#69Inspectors don't really concern themselves with verifying that an invention works. That would be insanely expensive. It's on the inventor to make something work so that they can profit. Although I do think inventors should have some burden of proof that they're effectively using their patent to provide a service to the market that justifies their monopoly protection.
As a matter of fact, it is normal for patent examiners to not even read the invention specification and focus only on the claims.
I was surprised to learn that from a patent attorney, but it seems to be common knowledge, e.g. [1]. Upon reflection, that's the only way it can work. A generalist patent examiner could never understand all the inventions given the volume of applications they must handle.
[1] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/07/25/anatomy-bogus-alice-rej...
Re: Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?
#70It was noticed. I can patent anything short of a perpetual motion machine regardless of functionality. But if you talked to people in the biotech community, most were very doubtful (at best) of her claims. I have several friends in the very markets she was going after, and they were never anything less than 100% certain she was a fraud and was going to blow up in the end.