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

Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

geekwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#51

Post by jbuzbee »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #40
letstryagain wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IV is an evil corporation. It does not feel pain. It cannot be reasoned with. Nathan Myhrvold struck it rich with Microsoft, then he beat cancer and now he's repaying us for all this luck by becoming the biggest patent troll the world has ever seen. Nathan is a shitstain.

> then he beat cancer I think you're confusing him with Paul Allen on this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen#Microsoft

Paul Allen. Huh. So what is it about these pathetic Microsoft guys?

http://www.wired.com/2010/08/paul-allen-patent-lawsuit/

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#52

Post by ranran876 »

programmarchy wrote: post #33
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #13

IV is a garbage company trying to portray itself as a bastion of innovation. There are certain severe "bugs" in the way our intellectual property laws work in the US. IV exploits these bugs to make Billions of dollars. IV is not concerned with whether something is good or not. They exist to make hay while the intellectual property laws remain broken. I had no idea they had 500 people working for them. That means that…

I think dogpiling Intellectual Ventures is striking at the branches, and not at the root. The problem isn’t “patent trolls.” The problem is patents: > Even if patents actually accomplished their advertised purpose — “securing for limited Times to … Inventors the exclusive Right to their … Discoveries,” as the US Constitution puts it — they’d be a very bad idea. The claim that one can own an idea is silly on its face,…

Well if you assume the judicial system is corrupt - then the real problem lies in the courts - not necessarily in patents.

>The claim that one can own an idea is silly on its face

You do realize that the la-la land you want to live in doesn't preclude the ownership of ideas. Trade secrets will always exist and there is no practical way to prevent their existence.

Not only do patents allow innovations to be shared - but it also opens up the limited-time monopolistic advantage to other industries. It's easy for Google to have a secret algorithm on their servers, or for KFC to have a secret recipe - but it's harder to have a secret algo in a DLL, or a secret engine in a car.

In your world, hilariously, in-house server side software development would be significantly more profitable than client side software development.

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#53

Post by shmerl »

programmarchy wrote: post #33
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #13

IV is a garbage company trying to portray itself as a bastion of innovation. There are certain severe "bugs" in the way our intellectual property laws work in the US. IV exploits these bugs to make Billions of dollars. IV is not concerned with whether something is good or not. They exist to make hay while the intellectual property laws remain broken. I had no idea they had 500 people working for them. That means that…

I think dogpiling Intellectual Ventures is striking at the branches, and not at the root. The problem isn’t “patent trolls.” The problem is patents: > Even if patents actually accomplished their advertised purpose — “securing for limited Times to … Inventors the exclusive Right to their … Discoveries,” as the US Constitution puts it — they’d be a very bad idea. The claim that one can own an idea is silly on its face,…

> The problem isn’t “patent trolls.” The problem is patents

It doesn't make them any less guilty. It's like saying that criminals aren't the problem, but weapons they use are.

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#54

Post by tempermanent »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #13

IV is a garbage company trying to portray itself as a bastion of innovation. There are certain severe "bugs" in the way our intellectual property laws work in the US. IV exploits these bugs to make Billions of dollars. IV is not concerned with whether something is good or not. They exist to make hay while the intellectual property laws remain broken. I had no idea they had 500 people working for them. That means that…

> severely deluded, or morally repugnant.

c'mon, man ... capitalism isn't as voluntary as you're suggesting. Are these really the only possibilities?

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#55

Post by SilasX »

seanflyon wrote: post #15
shmerl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IV spends a large amount of money (billions [1]) on purchasing patents. One might reasonably expect that to encourage innovation. I don't see how purchasing any kind of patents can encourage innovation. Innovation is encouraged by returns from the innovation, not by returns from sold patents. Recycling patents for profit is a completely parasitic business which has nothing to do with innovation.

If you give money to people in exchange for innovation that encourages innovation. That said, purchasing patents only encourages innovation if those patents are the product of innovation.

Very true. You have to be careful to distinguish between

1) buying patents harms innovation, vs

2) That patent should not have been granted at all.

In my experience, most people arguing 1) either have a very confused argument, or turn out to actually be concerned with 2).

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#56

Post by rayiner »

jsmeaton wrote: post #42
rayiner wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You found an R&D company, the research goes slower than expected, and after five years you run out of funding. Result of that is: 1) you can sell the partial progress and recoup at least a little cash; versus 2) all your work is worth absolutely zip. If (1) is true rather than (2), you'll be more likely to engage in a risky R&D business in the first place. If (2) is true, you'll focus on something that will yield a s…

I agree with you, and I don't think patents themselves are the issue. It is the vast number of bad patents that are being approved and used as leverage against those that can't financially defend themselves. If an R&D firm have spent millions developing (inventing) a new method of transportation, then they should be able to have that method patented. But I'd argue that "swipe to unlock" is not an invention and should…

The problem is that distinguishing between good patents and bad ones isn't easy and the current statutes don't make it easy. Hence the seeming concensus on HN that patents are more trouble than they're worth. Which is an entirely justifiable viewpoint given the demographic of this site: if you're in the internet sector where capital costs are low and five years might as well be an eternity, then patents are almost certainly more of a hinderence in your industry than a help.

The question is: what about the 90% of the engineering world that's outside that sector? Imagine a hypothetical company trying to do what Google is doing with self-driving cars. Is there a non-IP business model for such a company that doesn't involve "bankroll blue-sky R&D with the massive profits thrown off by your advertising business?"

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#57

Post by SilasX »

jamra wrote: post #12
chris_va wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question, unclear answer. IV is not a typical patent troll, so the standard patent troll argument is hard to apply. They do not file large numbers of small lawsuits, but rather a small number of very large lawsuits (e.g. against the Intel/Ford/AIG types). They generally do loser pays, and a few other things that make them hard to bucket as a normal patent troll. IV spends a large amount of money (billions [1]) o…

It's more simple than that. Does IV produce anything? If they don't have a product or a revenue stream other than suing companies, then they are parasite to the economy.

There's also the possibility [1] that their lawsuits prevent companies from free-riding off the innovative ideas by using them without licensing them, thereby increasing the return to innovation. Though obviously if the typical such lawsuit is over obvious ideas or ones independently discovered by the defendants, that would not apply.

[1] not claiming this is the actual case with IV, but it's important to be aware of this mechanism

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#58

Post by belorn »

ranran876 wrote: post #52
programmarchy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think dogpiling Intellectual Ventures is striking at the branches, and not at the root. The problem isn’t “patent trolls.” The problem is patents: > Even if patents actually accomplished their advertised purpose — “securing for limited Times to … Inventors the exclusive Right to their … Discoveries,” as the US Constitution puts it — they’d be a very bad idea. The claim that one can own an idea is silly on its face,…

Well if you assume the judicial system is corrupt - then the real problem lies in the courts - not necessarily in patents. >The claim that one can own an idea is silly on its face You do realize that the la-la land you want to live in doesn't preclude the ownership of ideas. Trade secrets will always exist and there is no practical way to prevent their existence. Not only do patents allow innovations to be shared - b…

> Not only do patents allow innovations to be shared

No one learn from patents anymore. Thats the core argument against patents as a tool for knowledge.

If patents are a tool for knowledge, lets maximize that then. Lets require a working model. Lets require source code.

It used to be that this was how the patent system worked, but then the lobby removed it from the system. Now its just a legal document, written by lawyers for lawyers.

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#59

Post by serf »

beambot wrote: post #47
bkruse wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an ignorant question at all! All were from trolls/non-practicing entities except for one (which we settled). As soon as we went public, we became a target. It would come in the form of: "Hello, we are XYZ company are you are infringing on 1,324 of our patents related to computing and to communicating over USB - we would be happy to not move forward with our lawsuit for the sum of $500,000" We called it the revers…

Were any of the trolls that brought lawsuits (before MJ joined the fold) actually one of IV's 2000 shell companies? [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121220/02365821447/intel...

that's an interesting perspective, even if it turns out to be un-true. That's probably a good strategy.

Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce

#60

Post by SoftwareMaven »

jbuzbee wrote: post #51
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then he beat cancer I think you're confusing him with Paul Allen on this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen#Microsoft

Paul Allen. Huh. So what is it about these pathetic Microsoft guys? http://www.wired.com/2010/08/paul-allen-patent-lawsuit/

Do you have any idea how morally bankrupt Microsoft was in the 90s? These guys got their training at Microsoft. The irony is the chief has completely changed, while the underlings continue on, perhaps trying to move out of his shadow.

Edit: Perhaps a little context is in order for the younger crowd here, since the MS today is very different from the MS of the 90s. First is "embrace, extend, extinguish", which was used to great effect with Internet Explorer and with Java. Their FUD campaign against Linux was legendary. They played nasty tricks during acquisitions. The list goes on[1].

1. http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_4.html (To be fair, this person obviously has an axe to grind, so read with a bit of skepticism, but I worked at both competitors and partners of MS during that time, at neither position was very comfortable.)

Post reply on HN