Nathan Myhrvold: Alpha patent troll?
Summary: Former Microsoft exec Nathan Myhrvold has been collecting patents, extracting fees from technology companies via his company Intellectual Ventures. Is Myhrvold a patent troll with tech cred?
Former Microsoft exec Nathan Myhrvold has been collecting patents, extracting fees from technology companies via his company Intellectual Ventures. Is Myhrvold a patent troll with tech cred?
The Wall Street Journal has a long account of Myhrvold's patent collecting efforts and how he is winning multimillion dollar payments from the likes of Verizon and Cisco. These payments are top secret material, but Myhrvold's firm is the one reaping the rewards. Intellectual Ventures has more than 20,000 patents. In many respects, Myhrvold is just a patent trader. A few lawsuits could define him as a troll quickly though.
Myhrvold hasn't launched a bunch of lawsuits yet, but it does sound like they are coming. The Journal reports:
Unlike most other pure licensing companies, Intellectual Ventures hasn't filed patent-infringement lawsuits to help force settlements. But the group lobbying on behalf of tech companies in Washington, the Coalition for Patent Fairness -- which includes several companies that have been approached for licensing deals by Intellectual Ventures -- says it is only a matter of time. "Since these thousands of patents only give [Intellectual Ventures] the right to stop others from making products, through lawsuits, it is obvious what they intend to do," the group said in a statement.
In an interview at his Bellevue, Wash., headquarters, Mr. Myhrvold acknowledged facing resistance from companies he targets for licenses. But his patent inventory gives him leverage to extract settlements without litigation. "I say, 'I can't afford to sue you on all of these, and you can't afford to defend on all these,'" Mr. Myhrvold said.
The back and forth goes like this. Myhrvold says that companies don't like paying for patents and that Intellectual Ventures is only doing what others--like IBM and Texas Instruments--do. The companies targeted by Myhrvold say he's increasingly adversarial and a threat. Myhrvold counters that dealing with Intellectual Ventures is more efficient than facing a bevy of one-off patent suits.
A transcript sums up Myhrvold's view:
All of this fear is from people who have guilty knowledge of their own actions. There are lots of major tech companies that grew from zero to gigantically successful in a very short period of time without investing in their own inventions. They got there by using other people's inventions.
Myhrvold's message: The free ride is over.
[poll id=93]
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
One thing I would like to know
[i]inventions[/i]?
What's an invention?
Well, I'll start here
Amazon's one click and Eolas' patent are a couple that
don't pass this test. I wonder how many of Myhrvold's
patents are of this variety.
Function vs means
Software has the difficulty that these variations are meaningless; the same outcome can come from writing the code in a different language. Doesn't improve anything, only restates. And greater efficiency of code is not a new idea; it would be like improving the metal of which a trap is made without changing how it functions.
A valid software patent - assume there is such a thing as a new idea for what a computer can do - thus has to be about improving function, without regard to the idea's expression, the means of providing the function.
Also relevant, there's an often-indicated problem that once ideas are described, the person responding can observe, that's obvious. Seems a particularly common reaction among engineers. So Courts have to be careful about declarations of obviousness; they may have been decided upon only after surprise has faded.
When Thomas Jefferson was the first patent officer, while also Secretary of State (as I recall), he agonized for days over how obvious an idea might be to someone working in the field the patent concerns. Obviousness is almost completely subjective.
I can't understand how a patent like one-click could have been endorsed, myself. But mine is not the subjectivity that evaluates the newness of patent ideas.
The original question was, What's an invention(?). The answer, unfortunately, is whatever someone with the authority to make the decision thinks it is. And I'd never be confident in advance of what the decision will be.
Unfortunately, you're right
the authority to make the decision thinks it is.[/i]
The courts, patent office, and government can redefine
words, terms, and entire categories to suit a current
need...hence, the award of certain categories of
patents. I seem to remember some time in the 80's
that the Reagan administration declared ketchup a
vegetable, and with that declaration, a wider variety
of school lunches were deemed nutritious and public
schools saved considerable expense.
Ketchup remained a condiment
Schools did continue to receive substantial amounts of cheese the government had purchased to keep the price up. Any medical effects were funded by a different program.
Thank you for clarifying
what was nutritious. 20+ years ago is a long time.
RE: Nathan Myhrvold: Alpha patent troll?
http://www.intellectualventures.com/inv_main.aspx
Reverse Engineering?
This guy sounds more like a parasite than a troll exacting tolls. Something smells.
Public, university, and foundation research connections
Places that let individuals walk with more IP than the fully private sector.
Everyone plays by the same rules
All of the tech companies that are making money off of patented products, technologies and processes are in violation of the the rules that everyone is expected to follow. If they aren't following the rules, then why can't he sue them?
Leave it to the courts to decide the definition of a patent or invention, but leave it up to the "troll" to make everyone play by the same rules.
And we can also hope...
some of these patents should have not been patented
and are not worth the paper they are written on.
Vapor patents only support lawyers
Why not "invention" instead of "inventing"?
Check out definition 3:
: a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment
But, since patent law isn't based on Merriam-Webster, this is moot.
Posted in response to the thread under the first post
Did you read #4 under invention?
But your original question was not [i]What's an
invention under patent law?[/]...it was [i]What's an
invention?[/i]. I was just trying to put forth what I
thought was the spirit of an invention without respect
to patent law. However, since you are now revealing
your complete question, I believe Anton said it best:
[i]The answer, unfortunately, is whatever someone with
the authority to make the decision thinks it is.[/i].
Did you read #4 under invention?
But your original question was not [i]What's an
invention under patent law?[/i]...it was [i]What's an
invention?[/i]. I was just trying to put forth what I
thought was the spirit of an invention without respect
to patent law. However, since you are now revealing
your complete question, I believe Anton said it best:
[i]The answer, unfortunately, is whatever someone with
the authority to make the decision thinks it is.[/i].
A preview would sure be nice.
RE: Nathan Myhrvold: Alpha patent troll?
Intellectual Ventures approached me and offered 20k.
Guess what? It cost about 20k just to get the patent.
There is something to be very scared of when they speak of Leveling the playing field for Inventors. They are leveling it alright-
I would be scared of what is really taking place amongst companies like IV and the Government.
Never sell a patent, lease it!
RE: Nathan Myhrvold: Alpha patent troll?
http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/patent-troll