71–78 of 78 posts
I 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?
I 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 entirely plausible - perhaps very likely - Myhrvold believes in what he's doing, believes in patents, believes patents help innovation, and so on. The world is filled with billions of people that believe truly crazy things, plenty of those people are smart and successful.
I strongly doubt that. It's more likely that believes in filling his pockets using crooked means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
I think the more appropriate distinctions between good patents and bad are in the subject matter of the claims themselves (e.g. the novelty and non-obviousness requirements). Thankfully, the Supreme Court is tightening this up lately.
Here's a list of their shell companies: http://www.plainsite.org/tags/intellectual-ventures-shell-co...
> The main issue debated is whether or not companies like IV hurt or help innovation with its business practices. This is an interesting point. Has anyone (without a direct financial interest to do so) made a credible argument that IV is anything other than harmful to innovation?
The partnership allows Intellectual Ventures to fund
the inventive work of students and faculty in areas of
interest to Intellectual Ventures, such as next generation
data centers, dynamic surgical enhancements, and green and
sustainable chemistry. Caltech will own the resulting patents
and IV will receive a license to commercialize the technology.
The inventors will earn a share of the profits from inventions
that are commercialized, and will also have an option to create
startup companies based on their innovations.
[1] http://www.intellectualventures.com/news/press-releases/cali...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Couldn't agree more. The focus on non-practicing entities is misplaced. There's no reason we shouldn't incentivize inventors who come up with great ideas so they can sell them to others who have the skills to bring them to market. I think the more appropriate distinctions between good patents and bad are in the subject matter of the claims themselves (e.g. the novelty and non-obviousness requirements). Thankfully, th…
I'm not so sure about this. The Supreme Court is attempting to define and apply standards that some experts consider arbitrary and highly subjective. One example is the attempt to make a distinction between a mathematical function and a novel software algorithm. It almost seems like the distinction is made based upon whether or not the particular justice writing the opinion is able to understand it. Some might even go so far as to say that only magic is patentable (recalling the oft-repeated Arthur C. Clarke quote).
I 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?
I suspect that despite his achievements he may have felt a bit like a peasant in their presence.
He may have wanted to achieve their fame and wealth.
He thought IV would be a good vehicle to achieve fame and fortune. I think he may not have understood the deep revulsion of the engineering world towards his methods.
He may have initially thought we would consider him a savior working for our benefit ... after all I think he used to believe he was doing it for "inventors".
Now he is too far gone probably. He either no longer cares what engineers and the world thinks, or he has deluded himself into thinking that his scamming is good for the world.
Either way, he will probably carry this infamy to his grave.
Although, I have to say, our country has a way of rehabilitating robber barons who give their wealth away. So his end-game may be to take his enormous wealth and use it to destroy some terrible affliction of mankind.
I think it would be a triumph, and perhaps ironic(?) if he took his wealth and used it to reform the patent system.
But short of that, he will probably be remembered by those of us in the tech and legal fields as a scammer and a scumbag of epic proportions, who was protected in his thieving by the laws of the USA. In any other time or place, such a man would have been tarred and feathered by a posse of his community for his conspiracies and crimes.