Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
61–70 of 78 posts
Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
#62Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
#63I dont get Myhrvold. He was wealthy beyond all get-out and, judging by his educational background, was probably intellectually curious at one point in his existence. Why would he direct the fall/winter of his life energy into this bullshit?
It's not unusual by any means. Morally bankrupt, but not unusual.
Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
#64One of the IV execs lived in my building. He was a self-obsessed douche.
Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
#65Earlier 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,…
> The problem is patents: No, patents are fine. The problem is that current patent laws enable patent trolls. If we could find a way to eradicate patent trolls while preserving patents, their intent would be served much better. For example, you should only be able to acquire patents if you can prove you have a business pertinent to those patents. This kind of measure would instantly kill all patent trolls.
And anyone else who files for a patent but is unable to bring their idea to market in the form of a product or service. This includes (but is not limited to) private inventors, universities, research institutions and even large companies such as ARM Holdings plc.
Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
#66IV 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,…
Patents were made to protect against an injustice, but they are causing a greater injustice. The injustice they sought to protect against, is the cheating of the inventor of the fruits of his labor, by some Capitalist exploiter, who takes the invention without compensating the inventor.
Unfortunately, in order to protect against that injustice, we have created a framework that perpetuates a greater injustice. The "inventors" have become the wolves in this system, because the bar for invention is so low. And arguably there is no practical and economic system we could use to properly raise this bar. The expertise required to properly remove "trivial" patents is too expensive for the state to deploy, and is in too short supply. We need that expertise to be used to make things, not sit at the Patent Office to sort through patent applications.
Analogously, what if we were greatly troubled by bullies in American schools, and decided to deploy a system whereby highly trained monitors would follow each child around to make sure they were not bullied. The system might result in zero bullying, but the costs might be prohibitive, not only in terms of salaries for all of these monitors, but in invasion of privacy, and perhaps even persecution of innocent children that are mistakenly identified as bullies by under-skilled monitors.
If we sought to remove this system of anti-bully monitors, I'm sure we would here a giant ruckus from all the anti-bullying activists who would demand that the system be kept in place ... to stop bullying. And since bullying is such a terrible thing, we would have a hard time repealing the anti-bullying law in Congress.
And no doubt, the union of anti-bullying monitors would raise the money to lobby against us in congress, as their jobs and benefits would be under threat.
Patents were the worst "good" idea that the founding fathers had. They really fucked up bad. And I don't think we will ever be able to get out from under this shit system. The patent lawyers make too much money. The trolls make too much money. The shit-stains who file the bullshit patents and don't know how to make real products, make too much money.
And the American people don't care, because, so far, the system has just acted as a tax on engineers ... and engineers make enough money to eat. It doesn't matter to the American people that an entry level Patent associate at a big law firm makes $160,000 per year (standard and without much variation) while a software engineer that produces the patented technology makes only about $80,000. Nobody thinks there is any irony in that.
Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devil's advocate: A secondary market for patents incentivizes investors to fund innovation, in the hopes of re-selling when/if the IP becomes valuable. That's the story, anyway. In the real world, I think patents are vastly net-negative towards genuine innovation, and in most cases, morally repugnant besides.
A secondary market for patents is fantastic. There are secondary markets for everything. The banking/venture system is designed to allocate scarce resources as efficiently as possible - why wouldn't the same thing exist for inventions? The real problem IMO is that patents are being issued for frivolous ideas. If patents really represented inventions of value, then the secondary market should be correctly allocating t…
My moral objection to patents can be concisely summed up by John Carmack:
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
Anything that is so specific that it could not be reproduced by an independent human in a clean room (ie, the full text of Harry Potter) is well protected by copyright. Anything which can be reproduced through simple problem-solving can not be said to be "owned" by its creator. Patents outlaw thinking itself.
Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devil's advocate: A secondary market for patents incentivizes investors to fund innovation, in the hopes of re-selling when/if the IP becomes valuable. That's the story, anyway. In the real world, I think patents are vastly net-negative towards genuine innovation, and in most cases, morally repugnant besides.
Without an excellent argument, I don't think I can agree. Many members of the public believe patents are a bad thing for society because 99% of all reporting on them is about the negative aspects; you rarely hear about the good that has come from them. It's the same reason people in the US feel less safe than ever from violent crimes even though the rates have dropped significantly. the norm is boring and the excepti…
In other domains, I'm sure there are instances where patents did genuine good, benefitting both their creators and society. (It's worth noting that patents are specified in the Constitution as intended for the public good.)
However, I still contend that the net effect is, on average, a drag on innovation, even if it's closer to 60/40 than 99/1. The system incentivizes a "mutually assured destruction" of big companies and patent portfolios, and blocks out small players who can't afford a legal team. It moves market competition into the domain of a flawed justice system, where even a victory can destroy a creator through millions in legal fees and years of lost productivity. It creates a vacuum filled by companies like IV who sit on their laurels and milk patent licenses, often for inventions never realized, rather than actually make anything.
Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
#69I dont get Myhrvold. He was wealthy beyond all get-out and, judging by his educational background, was probably intellectually curious at one point in his existence. Why would he direct the fall/winter of his life energy into this bullshit?
The world is filled with billions of people that believe truly crazy things, plenty of those people are smart and successful.
Re: Intellectual Ventures cuts 140 employees from its patent-buying workforce
#70This is such a brazen shakedown, it's not even funny. Are there any laws which can be applied to prevent this?