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

101–110 of 124 posts

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

#101

Post by 75dvtwin »

glenstein wrote: post #75
whatshisface wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the board members of Theranos were retired military officials, which seems especially interesting in the context of how Theranos was originally planning on selling the technology that we now know to be non-working to the military. I recall that the sale was originally blocked by low-level military regulators. Holmes may not have scammed as many people as we thought - the window is open on the idea that some o…

I get the sense from reading the book that a lot of the fraud Holmes perpetrated was with the intent of buying time and pushing forward with a finalized product. It's still fraud, of course, but fraud with a vision I guess you could say.

'buying time' ... while raising capital from investors, for a fraudulent technology.

Seems like a sort of ponzi scheme where the 'financial instrument' is a 'technology vision'.

Would not be surprised if Holmes pay anything to the earlier investors, with the money of the new ones...

Her life's work, in her words, was 'redefining the paradigm of diagnosis' ( https://youtu.be/5tEeSHy1x98?t=1m19s )

Very 'Silicon Valey' lingo in her speech: 'Reinventing / Redefining / Reimagining XYZ'. With a portfolio of groundbreaking patents...

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

#102

Post by godelmachine »

These days they get patent for just about anything. Elon Musk patented Tesla Model S’ looks by presenting sketches to the patent office. A UX designer who works close to my office patented the graphical layout of a reporting software. She got a US design patent for that.

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

#103

Post by windyfeeling »

narrator wrote: post #29
mchannon wrote: post #3

Thomas Edison freely admitted most of his 1,093 US patents were for inventions that would never have worked. Patenting a completely ridiculous and impossible idea is quite straightforward if you know the system and have the money and reputation. Journalists are notoriously bad at technical due diligence, but the fact is even trained scientists and engineers can be duped, particularly when access is limited. Having be…

Patenting inventions that don't work is a great way to waste a lot of money on patent attorneys and patent office fees. Worldwide patenting can get even more ridiculously expensive. There are some really nutty patents out there.

I am listed as (co)inventor for several patents from my last job with a big firm. All but a couple of them my report to my team lead was along the lines of “this new method does not provide a benefit over what’s existing, but also does not negatively impact.” It’s truly an experience sitting in a conference call with a company patent lawyer where you say one thing and then you listen to them spin it in a more positive light. The money needed to file the patents pay out patent bonuses (to the people listed as (co)inventors) is literally a rounding error. My team lead held on the order of tens of patents, all with similar findings, all filed to prevent our competition from patenting first.

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

#105

Post by supermatt »

mwfunk wrote: post #88
dragonwriter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Don’t shit where you eat" is a warning against office romances. It's a warning against poisoning an environment on which you depend that has been applied to lots more than office romances, though that may be the most common use in some social circles today.

That makes sense. I’ve only ever heard it used in that context, but the more general interpretation is a much more logical use of the metaphor.

The more general interpretation is not shitting where you eat

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

#106

Post by roma1n »

donbright wrote: post #63
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.

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 wo…

Carreyrou :) By the way, the book is really good. Should be suggested reading for anyone in the workforce or about to enter it.

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

#107

Post by skookumchuck »

mchannon wrote: post #3

Thomas Edison freely admitted most of his 1,093 US patents were for inventions that would never have worked. Patenting a completely ridiculous and impossible idea is quite straightforward if you know the system and have the money and reputation. Journalists are notoriously bad at technical due diligence, but the fact is even trained scientists and engineers can be duped, particularly when access is limited. Having be…

Isn't it ironic that people who cheat on exams expend so much effort at it? Wouldn't it be easier to just learn the material?

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

#108

Post by chris_wot »

Brakenshire wrote: post #34
danso wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

"A chemistry" doesn't even make grammatical sense.
Post reply on HN