Slashdot Log In
Nathan Myhrvold and the Business Of Invention
Posted by
Soulskill
on Thu May 08, 2008 08:10 PM
from the ok-let's-run-with-that dept.
from the ok-let's-run-with-that dept.
elwinc writes "There's a great New Yorker story about Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures company, whose business model is to nurture ideas, write patents, and sell them. Apparently they're filing about 500 patents a year including a passive thorium reactor which consumes waste from conventional reactors. On the lighter side, you can read how Nathan has achieved 'dominant T. rex market share.'"
Though we've discussed Myhrvold and his company in the past, the New Yorker focuses more on how incredible it is to have a group of very intelligent people sitting around a table developing ideas.
Related Stories
[+]
Ex-Microsoft CTO Checks In On Patent Reform 144 comments
theodp writes "Defending his controversial Intellectual Ventures in a less-than-hard-hitting CNET interview, ex-Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold finds it peculiar that some people get really wound up over patents. 'People generally don't have any problem with the patent system,' quipped Myhrvold, the inventor of Microsoft's patented Television scheduling system for displaying a grid representing scheduled layout and selecting a programming parameter for display or recording, which allows you to more efficiently select shows like Elimidate for viewing."
[+]
$400 Million IP Experiment Making Some Nervous 262 comments
BrianWCarver writes "IP Law & Business shines the spotlight on Intellectual Ventures, the IP start-up founded in 2000 by former Microsoft chief technologist Nathan Myhrvold. According to some estimates, Intellectual Ventures has amassed 3,000-5,000 patents, with the help of a $400 million investment from some of the biggest technology companies, including Nokia, Intel, Apple, Sony, and Microsoft. As the patent stockpile grows, so does the speculation--and the fear. IP lawyers and tech executives worry that Intellectual Ventures is less interested in changing the world with big ideas, and more focused on becoming an über patent troll, wreaking litigation havoc across industries with its patents."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there's this whole "ideas have value" thing. Their whole business model is based on that tenant. Which is why they're not actually selling these patents to anyone, no-one goes out looking for a great idea to pour money into and create a business from.. investors go looking for *people* who have both a great idea and the technical skills to turn it into a workable business.. you can't just pick up someone else's idea and run with it, no matter how well the patent is written, and there's never written well. So how are they making their money? By litigation. So they're not actually helping progress, they're hindering it.
All in all, its a dot com era idea for a business.. "let's get smart people together and invent stuff" and leave all the pesky marketing and sales to someone else.. but that's what business *is*, so you're basically saying you want to be in the business of not being in business.
Re:Ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
All in all, I agree with the parent, this company is a leech. It sucks value out of the economy while adding none in return.
Parent
Not so sure about storytellers (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly, there is a branch of storytelling and artistic creativity which is highly in tune with the scientific method and Socratic thought. Not all, sure, or even necessarily a whole lot, but the two are not exclusive. On the other hand, you are correct in saying that no quality science is conducted in a purely creative sense. "Thought experiments" come the closest, being a form of daydreaming and roleplaying, but they are still more entrenched in rational thought than emotional whim.
Parent
intellectual honey pots (Score:3, Insightful)
If they required a working prototype, I'd agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can patent a perpetual motion machine
And I'll hinder REAL innovation and progress.
That's the goal with that company. They aren't improving anything. They're abusing the patent system (with the patent system's willing support) to drain profits from real inventors.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Fair enough, you're entitled to whatever POV you like. But there's no way to argue logically with you, since your assumptions are so fantastically different from mine.
FWIW, I assume the PTO is run by pretty clever people who do the best they can, given the general difficulty with predicting the future, and who have a pretty decent -- albeit not perfect -- track record over the past 200 years, and who would normally see right thr
Patent Office is not run by morons but (Score:5, Insightful)
This allowed a lot of ideas to get lost. Patents were specifically designed to prevent this act. But now in 2000 and the internet this idea is totally useless. There will be always people who can reverse engineer to find out how the thing works. So that particular reason for Patents is patently lost.
Now there is another use of patents to allow people to invest into projects that have a very high risk value. Pharmaceutical companies do have these kinds of projects. I would think there is some use of patents for these sort of companies.
But for the rest of the market Patents are an abomination. They should be abolished. Software industry definitely does not need patents. They already can use copyrights, to control their creations.
One thing that the patent office should do is to require a working prototype. No prototype no patent. And the complete plan should be made open.
Parent
Re:intellectual honey pots (Score:4, Insightful)
If the rest of the "science" article has the quality of the abstract, that particular patent application is a classic example of patents that should be denied for lack of useful contribution.
To prevent this, I think patents should only be granted when an implementation is also described, with the possibility of overturning the patent if the implementation does not actually work.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are throwing shit at a wall (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ideas (Score:5, Informative)
evidence to this light is found here: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348 [cosmosmagazine.com]
a company by the name of thorium power, is designing a real thorium based fuel that would run in a conventional Russian atomic reactor, and along comes this patent troll company trying to eat up the US thorium reactor patents... which will mean Russia and China may be using thorium reactors while America finds itself unable to because 'the patent troll drove the cost too high'
Parent
Re:Ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
We think that they invented the world's first aircraft (untrue, but let's not go into that now). They thought their big advance was solving the problem of aircraft control (which they had, but in a cumbersome and essentially dead-end way, with wing warping).
Did they advertise this for the benefit of humanity, like Santos-Dumont did? No, they patented it and tried to force all aircraft designers to pay them money. Of course, this only worked in the US, so before long France, Britain, Russia and Germany were designing all kinds of aircraft, while development in the US had ceased.
When WW1 came we had to buy fighters from the French - we had no industry of our own.
I sometimes laugh at the plaudits offered to the Wrights, when the only thing they really did was SUPRESS American development of aircraft for 15 years.....
Parent
Re:Ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
It serves America right. Currently we believe we can grant ourselves a monopoly on most ideas, business models, and software, and then use our economic, diplomatic, and military muscle to force the rest of the world to eventually adopt laws enshrining such patents into their legal systems, and thereby hard code a medium-term economic dominance over everyone else.
What we didn't count on was George W. Bush draining our economy, diluting our military strength, and devistating our diplomatic influence using our nation to prosecute a pernsonal and family vendetta against the Hussein family.
As a result, we are no longer in a position to dictate our agenda to the rest of the world (this is in most ways a good thing for everybody, including the US, even if we don't know it), and lo and behold! The rest of the world has chosen not to enact business method and software patents, and isn't too keen on granting patents for vague ideas the so-called "inventors" have no intention of actually building. So if that means the rest of the world ends up with cheap, clean power, and the US economy flounders or even impldoes, well, our own greed and lust for dominance brought it upon ourselves, and we deserve it.
And maybe, just maybe, our falling behind every other developed nation in just about every field will be the catalyst we need for real patent and copyright reform. I'm not betting on it--we seem to have developed a talent for burying our heads in the sand--but there is an outside hope such change might eventually happen, someday.
Parent
Ideas have value, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideas have value, but what they don't have is natural ownership. By unnaturally imposing ownership on them through patents, the value they have for the community of producers is reduced, while the value they have for legal leeches who produce nothing is increased. And that's a disastrous tradeoff for community.
patent troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:patent troll (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because they think it up shouldn't mean they get a monopoly on the idea, it's only hindering companies that are actually doing all the work imho.
Slave masters (Score:5, Insightful)
Misuse of the system (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, but the system in place is one that a lot of people feel is necessary to some extent. For the basement developer who comes up with an idea and makes a prototype working weekends in his home workshop, getting a patent for something useful is the end result of years of hard work. But getting a patent for 4 hours of sitting around brainstorming, and coming up with an idea that may not even be
That's what we need... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That's what we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pimps are the epitome of coolness.
I was like you once. Young, idealistic.
Now, how do I get these dead fish out of my shoes?
"passive thorium reactor" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: "passive thorium reactor" (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No patents:
1. Come up with good idea
2. Talk to investors about idea
3. Investors run with it themselves
4. No profit
Patents:
1. Come up with good idea
2. Patent idea
3. Talk to investors about idea
4. Make the product with investors
5. Profit
Least, that was the idea with the big engineering patents at least. With the "soft" patents that are basicly done the moment yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of a patent is so that you can keep your competitors from adopting your newest innovation, thus giving you an advantage in the market place for a limited time in return for disclosing how your invention works.
Originally patents were a means for attracting skilled immigrants to come set up shop.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if another company named 'thorium power' had been developing a way to make thorium/uranium/plutonium rods... the plutonium to activate the thorium the thorium to create energy and activate the uranium, which creates energy and keeps the thorium going..
and they didn't patent every single idea that was possibl
Perspiration (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for "promoting science and the useful arts..." - ergo, IMHO, unconstitutional.
Parent
Right, and here's how to fix it... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you show up with your idea that you think deserves protection, the patent examiner's first duty is to look at what evidence you provide that this idea has been economically feasible for 20 years, and no one has done it yet.
If it has been feasible for 20 years, then there is a market that could support it, and there are big players in that market, and the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I like that general idea, but it just wouldn't work:
- Patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures could simply start tons of shell companies. If the cost of creating one of these was, say, $1k, they'd get themselves some 167 "independent subdivisions", getting the price down to $800 per patent.
- Some giant companies may actually come up with lots and lots of ideas. The l
I thought you couldn't patent an idea... (Score:3, Informative)
Patentable Subject Matter. Assuming the criteria described in the next section are also satisfied, any new and useful process, machine, manufac- ture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement of these things, can be patented. These cate- gories are quite broad, but the courts have identified certain types of subject matter that cannot be patented, including laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.
(from Can You Patent That?" [ftc.gov])
It's a semantic game ... (Score:2, Informative)
I have seen it before (Score:2)
MICHAEL (CONT'D)
This month is going to be bigger. It's
actually going to be the biggest month
we've ever had. We've got a new issue
I want to talk to you about. It's
called Med Patent. They've just
designed the world's first retractable
syringe. This means that doctors and
nurses will never again have to worry
about infection from dirty needles.
This is not going to be an alternative
in the medical world, it's going to be
the standard. We all know we're here
to make money, but if we can do
something good like this, then all the
better. So I want you all to go out
and buy yourselves a new car, or a
house. Whatever you want. Go into
debt. You will make a million inside
of six months.
-- from Boiler Room movie script.
Perpetual Monopoly Machine (Score:2)
Great idea, but Myhrvold didn't invent it. Luckily, he can't patent it, either.
New Yorker is a pathetic tribal mouthpiece (Score:2)
What a great idea... (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, maybe the place where they THINK could be called a TANK. I can't believe no one's thought of this before!
I'm not impressed by "inventors" (Score:5, Insightful)
The same sort of person who would fit in well with "social scientists." It's great that you are smart and have ideas, but I could give a shit less about your "ideas" if you cannot make a functioning prototype of them.
Our society should have precious little tolerance for people who only come up with ideas on paper, without being able to put them into practice.
Elisha Gray and the telephone (Score:2, Interesting)
At least one researcher has come up with a more prosaic explanation [amazon.com] for the coincidental telephone patent filings - he believes that Bell bribed a patent office employee to show him Gray's filing, after which Bell returned to his lab, completely revised his approach, and soon re-filed with a description of his triumphant "inven
Good not evil? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, I see, these are good patents not evil patents. Yes...
I hate these patent farms (Score:5, Informative)
Well guess what? One guy ownes ALL rights to the most common sense approaches, yet refuses to bring his product to market. Prior to my investigation, all my 'original' ideas have already been thought of , registered, and accepted. The only way I could move forward would be to pay someone who didn't do anything to help my work some money for every sale. That is, if he'd even respond to inquiries.
It gave me an edge for the future. If the system is going to be bound by such things, I am going to register every stupid thing I come across that hasn't been registered yet. If I can't invent without being stifled, why should anyone else?
Re:I hate these patent farms (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Phooey (Score:2)
They are parasites (Score:5, Insightful)
But it looks like plenty of people have already made that point. Excellent!
These people should not be glamorized, they should be roundly criticized for being lowlife parasites.
THAT Nathan Myhrvold... (Score:4, Interesting)
Reminds me of something I wrote a few years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line, patents are anti free-market, they are not property, they are not incentive, they are not protection. Rather brought to their logical conclusion they are genocidal.
decadent science (Score:3, Insightful)
You're an optimist ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well maybe next time you'll think twice... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please don't use the word "Muslims" like that... it's tarring all people of one belief with the same brush.
It's probably equally as accurate to say that most Christians who die violently do so at the hands of other Christians. (although I have no cite for this, just as you have no cite for your Troll)
(disclaimer: I'm not a Muslim or a Christian - in fact, I'm a staunch atheist that thinks both the Muslim and Christian faiths are COMPLETELY ridiculous. I just don't like it when people fuel hatred in this manner)
Parent