Intellectual Ventures Still Giving Tours Of The Sizzle To Distract Journalists From The Lack Of Steak
from the keep-trying dept
It never fails. Whenever more and more people start discussing what a downright dangerous company Intellectual Ventures is, and how its massive trolling operations are a huge hindrance to actual innovation, IV’s PR people invite some journalists to “take a tour” of the part of the building where they have people “inventing” stuff, hoping they’ll talk about what a miraculous special company IV is. It happened two years ago with Gizmodo, and this year, they had News.com take a tour. Thankfully, unlike the piece a couple years ago, News.com doesn’t ignore the elephant in the room, and makes sure to point out much of the criticism surrounding Intellectual Ventures. However, it also lets claims like this one slide:
“We think of the problem we want to solve,” says Tim Londergan, Intellectual Ventures’ senior director of investment strategy. “[We] find great inventions and get them to market.”
Um. And how many of them have they been able to “get to market”? The answer is exactly zero over twelve years. Despite $5 billion in investment money (using something of a pyramid scheme to get companies to pay up early to get some upside) and 70,000 “intellectual assets” (many of which were bought at fire sale prices from university tech transfer offices who were desperate to prove that tech transfer offices work, and who needed to get them off the books). A grand total of two companies have spun off, but neither has anything on the market, nor will they for many years. There’s something to be said for not rushing ideas, but $5 billion and twelve years… if you’re really looking for problems you want to solve and bringing the solutions to market, you’d expect a slightly higher hit rate.
Of course, given that investors in IV are also beginning to realize that their returns suck, you have to worry that IV is only going to ramp up the one part of its business that actually does make money: either shaking companies down by claiming they violate broad patents, or selling off patents to smaller shell firms that will do the same thing for them.
For all of Nathan Myhrvold’s ridiculous talk of doing God’s work, the company can’t try to hide the fact that it’s become a giant tax on companies who actually innovate, by hiring some scientists to do crazy experiments in fancy offices, none of which seem to have any likelihood of being useful. Innovation is about bringing products to market. Trolling is about forcing actual innovators to pay up for succeeding. IV has never been about innovation and is focused almost entirely on trolling. Having some scientists working on dopey projects that look good for the press doesn’t change any of that.
Filed Under: distractions, inventions, journalists, patents
Companies: intellectual ventures
Comments on “Intellectual Ventures Still Giving Tours Of The Sizzle To Distract Journalists From The Lack Of Steak”
Obviously, IV is doing God’s work.
If by “God”, you mean “anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists”.
Re: Re:
Given my recent thoughts on the state of the patent and copyright system, and how they’re legally setting back the speed of technological advancement to a pace at which the bronze age could beat, this statement probably has some inkling of truth to it. I know a lot of advancement back in the day was held back due to various religious views, so we’re well on our way back to that.
Re: Re: Re:
I know a lot of advancement back in the day was held back due to various religious views, so we’re well on our way back to that.
It isn’t the religious views that are the problem – it is the nature of the people that manipulate them in order to retain power and wealth.
The same type of people operate in the modern secular world – they just use a different set of beliefs. It has never been any different for most of history.
Unfortunately the only thing that seems to defeat it is war – preferably with a real threat behind it (not a phoney one like the 9/11 terrorism thing).
Re: Re: Re:
You may *think* that a lot of advancement back in the day was held back due to religious views, but you don’t *know* anything of the sort, because that’s simply not true. In fact, it’s essentially the exact opposite of the truth. Modern cultural imagery notwithstanding, we owe science and technology almost in its entirety to Christianity.
Have a look at http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis (I hope this link doesn’t get caught in a moderation trap) for the historical perspective on where modern science came from and why.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
we owe science and technology almost in its entirety to Christianity.
Like medicine! No wait…We can thank the Greeks and Middle Eastern cultures for that. Christian Doctrine for centuries sanctioned herbalism and apothecary as heresy.
Well there’s advanced mathematics! No…Greeks and Middle Eastern cultures again. Churches used simple mathematics for tax collection. Sorry, Tithe collection.
Well there’s engineering! Wait…No. Romans, who took it from the Greeks and Middle Eastern cultures. Due to losing knowledge of engineering, many innovations such as aqueducts, plumbing, and maintaining roads was lost in Europe after the fall of the empire.
How about chemistry? Yeah, sorry. That also predates the Christian movement. Again, with Christian Doctrine, what would become Chemistry was listed under a set of “Black Arts” — Alchemy. Except in cases where there could be the possibility of giving the Pope eternal life and a lot of gold.
And those examples are just the WESTERN views. There’s also the EASTERN developments that were done in Asia completely absent of Christian efforts. And of course the Pre-Colombian Americas weren’t exactly a barren wasteland devoid of technology, mathematics, and medicine either.
A lot of that knowledge was lost during the Dark Ages when Christianity ruled Europe. It wasn’t until the First Crusade when Europeans invaded the Middle East and brought back knowledge that had been lost for a few centuries.
Beyond that into the modern age, we see science, medicine, mathematics, and engineering as a world-wide collaborative effort. An effort that only grew with the rise and comparative ease of communications.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
OK, I should have been more specific. We owe modern scientific knowledge and the technology that derives from it almost entirely to Christianity.
While it’s true that ancient cultures stumbled upon a lot of useful knowledge, science, which is to say the use of the scientific method to discover the rules that these discoveries work by, is an artifact of Christianity.
The ancient Greeks had no science; their “natural philosophy” was based on the work of people like Aristotle, who came up with a bunch of just-so stories that intuitively sounded good enough for someone to accept. (Just look at the Wikipedia article on “Aristotelian physics,” which was the accepted basis for our ideas on how things work for thousands of years, to see how badly the ancient Greeks set back the progress of science.)
And when the principles of the scientific method and actual investigations into science and its practical applications as technology were begun, by Christian scholars, the reaction throughout the world was universally negative, because the principles of scientific investigation were antithetical to the dominant religious and cultural notions.
Again, we can point to the ancient Greeks as an example here. It’s said that Pythagoras (he of the famous theorem about triangles) had another mathematician put to death who had come up with a proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number, because Pythagoras did not believe in the concept.
There are good reasons why the ancient cultures you named never progressed beyond a certain point, while Christian cultures did. You really ought to read the article.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
We owe modern scientific knowledge and the technology that derives from it almost entirely to Christianity.
I did read the article in full. And I found a lot of faults with it and your premise. We owe a lot of knowledge and technology to some Christians. Not to Christianity. Christianity is a doctrine and a dogma. It’s a belief system based on a Bronze age set of ideals that has evolved over time to try to stay relevant to how society itself had changed.
The Ancient Greeks did have Science. Science is a process of discovery. A method of finding answers through experimentation has been a process used by humans since our prehistoric ancestors figured out how to crack nuts and utilize (and later create) fire.
Aristotle was known for analytics and logic. Archimedes was a renowned inventor and a pioneer in engineering. Hippocrates is still revered in the field of Medicine, and every Doctor that graduates from Medical School takes an oath which bears his name. Pythagoras was not only a mathematician but also an astromonmer. His observations of the movement of stars and planets helped him try to come up with a geocentric model of the universe and account for the strange orbits of Jupiter and Saturn (he was later proven incorrect).
And it didn’t stop there. Islamic Arabs took the Greek systems and the mathematics of Archimedes and Apollonius and expanded on it for geometry, algebra, and continued with trigonometry. When we get to medicine, around the ninth century, Islamic Arabs began to develop and utilize a system of medicine based on scientific analysis and procedures.
And those ancient cultures DID progress beyond a certain point. The Greek influences are with us today in the same fields we mentioned. Not to mention in Legal and Governmental systems of the Western world. The Arabic culture persists to this day and is as vibrant as as it was during the Crusades. Roman culture persists in a lot of our technology, terminology, language, and the fact that most scientific classifications are still written in Latin.
Now I didn’t say that Christians did not contribute to modern science and technology. The confirmation of Radio by ?douard Branly was a professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris. Georges Lema?tre was a Catholic Priest and Astronomer who postulated the Big Bang theory (as opposed to the Solid State theory). However he also wrote a letter to the Pope asking him not to equate the Big Bang to the Biblical account of Genesis.
And yet, even with all of the contributions provided to us through science by Christians (not Christianity) none of what we are doing now would be possible without the work of Allen Turing. Considered a key individual in the development of computers and computer technology. Allen Turing was an atheist. Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, Thomas J. Watson, Zhores Alferov, and Philip W. Anderson to name a few join him in the Non-Believers Club.
Their contributions to modern science and technology have nothing to do with their theology or lack, but of their great minds, development, and the works of those who came before them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Here is a funfact, most Protestant Ministers and Catholic Priests have a minor in psychology. There is a science to counseling people through their difficult times 🙂 With all due respect, Confession anyone?
Yet, how much stuff have they licensed that has gone to market? Once again, you are narrowly looking at things, and not considering their full business model.
Is something licensed that goes to market such a bad thing?
Re: Re:
So…its a good thing when a company that has zero products itself on the market is able to go to all the other companies (that do have products on the market) and say “Pay us now for a licence, or you’ll pay more later in the courtroom”.
What does the licence actually do? It’s all just a tax that does not benefit the other companies at all. All IV has are pieces of paper, and no products on the market. When other companies bring products to market, they capture that market relatively easily, yet somehow IV can cry “They violated our patents! Unfair competition! We’re being harmed!”
What harm! IV doesn’t SELL anything!
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, they have the license because they either (a) paid to develop the idea, or (b) paid someone else who came up with the idea. It’s not money for nothing.
The money they take in either has them buy more patents (paying off inventors) or creating new stuff themselves (many don’t, but some do)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So when the third party that made an independant invention gets sued out of existance and is no longer making anything, who benefits?
That sure sounds like exactly what gods work should. Right?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Does it really matter? They duplicated something already done, why bother? Just like movie and music makers apparently don’t lose anything to piracy, we as a society don’t lose anything when we eliminate meaningless duplication of efforts.
Next time they can innovate by painting something a new color or something.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“They duplicated something already done, why bother? “
Those are some really nice wheels you got there … copy much?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ok, Intelectual Ventures has gotten patents by inventors, and has done nothing with the product but sit on said patent. They promise to take your product and make you millions and invest nothing to do so.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You seemed to assume a lot. I said someone makes an independent invention, you assumed it was already on the market. I didn’t say they duplicated something already done.
I’m talking about something independently invented, but they get sued out of existance, and then NO product, of any kind, is on the market. Because, you know, the company I’m refering to is the only one making a product, at all. Because, of course, we *ALL* know IV doesn’t produce anything.
But don’t let your jumped to conclusions get in the way of a good argument, right?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“I’m talking about something independently invented, but they get sued out of existance, and then NO product, of any kind, is on the market. Because, you know, the company I’m refering to is the only one making a product, at all. Because, of course, we *ALL* know IV doesn’t produce anything. “
First come, first serve. Sorry if you don’t like it, but patents don’t really last for very long, so it’s not a big issue.
Remember, they don’t want to sue people out of existance (that would be financially meaningless). They want to license their work.
Independent invention isn’t a reason to deny someone the right to enforce their patent. It’s justification like all the bullshit that PaulT runs out to justify his piracy. Justification doesn’t make something right, except perhaps in your own weak mind.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Patents are for 20 years! (14 if non-functional)
If I expect to live to 80 then I’ll only see 4-5 iterations of an idea within my lifetime. If it takes hundreds of iterations to get to the point of a spaceship you can walk on flying around in space at near light speed, and all the doohickeys required, then we’ll be lucky to get there in 1000 years.
That sounds like an awful long time for an exclusive right to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, they have the license because they either (a) paid to develop the idea, or (b) paid someone else who came up with the idea. It’s not money for nothing.
Coming up with an idea is worth about as much as a warm bucket of spit.
Making an idea work is worth something. IV doesn’t do this.
Turning a workable idea into something that people want is worth something. IV doesn’t do this either.
Being able to provide that thing people want in a profitable way is worth something. IV doesn’t do it.
IV is not a tech company. Their lab is nothing more than a front. They’re a professional patent trolling law firm with better than average PR.
Re: Re:
How many of those ‘licensed’ products were already on the market before the license was insisted on?
Re: Re:
Yet, how much stuff have they licensed that has gone to market? Once again, you are narrowly looking at things, and not considering their full business model.
Ding ding ding. Mike whines how they don’t have any products on the market, but he fails to address the 40K patents they have licensed. How many of those licenses are for products on the market, Mike? And since when is having a product on the market directly the measure of a patent holder’s worth?
So much FUD, Mike. I really don’t get it. Do you wake up and think, “How can I spread FUD on IP law today? What baseless and misleading claims can I make that the TDers will eat up?” Seems like it.
Re: Re: Re:
Cool, so you’ll have no problem examples of where IV invented something and took it to market or helped some underfunded inventor get their product to market.
Let us know what you find.
Because, all other evidence points to IV being patent trolls.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cool, so you’ll have no problem examples of where IV invented something and took it to market or helped some underfunded inventor get their product to market.
Let us know what you find.
Because, all other evidence points to IV being patent trolls.
I have made no claim other than to say that their website says they’ve licensed 40K patents. Mike is the one making claims that he hasn’t/can’t back up.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So you admit that IV is simply a tollbooth charging those who actually make useful things.
Re: Re: Re:
If by license you mean tax, ding ding ding!
I don’t see your arguments as very compelling. You sound like a whiner yourself, what with the “mike did this!” “Mike did that!” You sound like a tattle-tale. It wasn’t becoming when you were 4, it isn’t becoming now that you are all grown up at 5.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if someone wants to license the property they own to others who wish to use it, that’s a “tax”? I don’t see how. Am I taxing my tenants when I lease them an apartment I own? Nope.
I’m merely pointing out that Mike, who has made his life’s work the calling out of others for making unsupported claims, himself does exactly the same thing. If you think calling someone out for being a hypocrite makes me a child, then I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s strange to me though how protective you all are of Mike. It’s a cult around here. And how come Mike rarely ever steps in to defend his own claims. He gets the cult members to do it for him.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Am I taxing my tenants when I lease them an apartment I own?”
Physical Property != Imaginary Property
Fact is – one can not own an idea.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s strange to me though how protective you all are of Mike. It’s a cult around here. And how come Mike rarely ever steps in to defend his own claims. He gets the cult members to do it for him.
I think most people try to stay on topic to the post. Only time “Mike” comes up is when people ignore the post and just start attacking Mike.
More interesting to debate topics and ideas. But, people with no ideas just find it easier to attack “Mike.”
Re: Re:
You say “licensed,” I say “extorted”.
Re: Re: Re:
Very much this. Once you understand how they “license” things this argument falls apart.
See, people don’t come to IV and say “that’s some awesome tech you have, can we get a license to use it?”. Its more like they go out to people who might be doing something that infringes on a patent they hold and say “that’s a nice product there, it would be a shame if something happened to it…” and either get people to license patents from them, buy into their patent pool, or they get taken to court (normally through some sort of shell company so their hands stay clean).
Understanding this makes it impossible to look at IV in a good light. They are truly a tollbooth on innovation.
First Rule?
I guess the first rule of starting a company is: make money. The second rule [it seems to me]: investors come first, and then maybe (a tinge of maybe) the customers second.
Re: First Rule?
Customers? When did that ever get mentioned at IV?
Re: First Rule?
No, no, no
The first rule of copy club is you do not talk about copy club.
Every time I read the ‘how much are you doing to stop Malaria?’ quote, I get the urge to reply “I’m going to hit you now, but it’s ok, I gave $100 to a homeless person outside.”
Re: Re:
How much ARE they doing to stop malaria?
Re: Re:
A mosquito killing laser … what could possibly go wrong?
Re: Re: Re:
IT gets used to kill oceans? It’s merely a matter of scale.
Re: Re: Re:
So they made a machine that kills mosquitos with lasers. Awesome in a Hollywood comedy kinda movie.
But has anyone considered how impractible this is to the real world and fighting malaria?
Let’s assume you could provide millions of these to sub-Saharan Africa at no cost. The places that need them the most have little infrastructure to run them (ie reliable electricity).
I think a case can be made that the money that went to designing and building that thing was a net detriment to fighting malaria – it was spent on a PR stunt toy instead of to a practical solution.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention the protective eye gear needed by anyone near the device.
Re: Re:
I don’t know where the quote is from but your statement:
” ‘ I’m going to hit you now, but it’s ok, I gave $100 to a homeless person outside, ‘ ” is how I feel about some of the AC’s when they troll.
I’ve recently found out by Facebook knowledge that most of us have issues to get up early in the morning to go to work due to invisible elephants. I admit I got shocked of how much sense it made and how they seem to flock on top of my bed on Monday mornings. Now, could it be that the elephant mentioned in this article has anything to do with those elephants that keep making it hard for me to get up? Could it be that IV is a highly innovative company that produces invisible goods?
I think Mike should take his head out of Google corporate arse and stop attacking fine companies like IV who are the paragon of innovation and money making in America.
Monday morning after a great weekend. Yeah.
Re: Re:
“invisible elephants”
They may be invisible, but you can still smell them.
Um. And how many of them have they been able to “get to market”? The answer is exactly zero over twelve years.
From their website, they claim to have “nearly 40,000 in active monetization programs.” Sounds to me like their patents are quite useful, hence all the licensing.
Sounds to me like your just whining, Mike.
the company can’t try to hide the fact that it’s become a giant tax on companies who actually innovate
Do you actually have any evidence that IV is a “giant tax on companies who actually innovate”? Or are you just starting with that conclusion and spouting baseless rhetoric?
I just don’t get you, Mike.
Re: Re:
From their website, they claim to have “nearly 40,000 in active monetization programs.”
Aaaaaand…
The question I have for you is…
What do they have on the market that people want?
Re: Re: Re:
What do they have on the market that people want?
You’re making the same presupposition as Mike. Why does someone have to have a product on the market to be worthwhile? Lots of companies supply the technology to other companies for research or for bringing products to market. It’s a straw man to say they aren’t doing anything worthwhile if they don’t personally have any products on the market. It’s just anti-IP FUD.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they’re not putting anything on the market or helping the market in some way… Then tell me, what’s the point of their business?
“It’s a straw man to say they aren’t doing anything worthwhile if they don’t personally have any products on the market. It’s just anti-IP FUD.”
Come on, name a business that was successful without putting something on the market that was useful.
Even scientists put something useful on the market.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If they’re not putting anything on the market or helping the market in some way… Then tell me, what’s the point of their business?
They market the technology that they own to others who want to use it. I don’t understand why that’s hard to grasp.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
That they otherwise independently could never have come up with on their own right? so when a company does independently invent something, they have to pay the IV tax?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
What technology do they own?
I think they own nothing and just claim to own stuff to make people pay up.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“What technology do they own?
I think they own nothing and just claim to own stuff to make people pay up.”
I think you know nothing and make things up. That is a presumptive piece of logic, as is yours.
You just don’t understand the idea that a market isn’t always direct from X to consumer. There are a lot of markets in the middle that don’t directly deal with consumers. Clearly, you have never been in business (or for that matter, outside of a classroom).
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
This is what I said…
“If they’re not putting anything on the market or helping the market in some way… Then tell me, what’s the point of their business?”
“market isn’t always direct from X to consumer. There are a lot of markets in the middle that don’t directly deal with consumers.”
That’s about the only thing you’ve said that’s factual.
If you make something and it doesn’t go onto the market (and the market isn’t just consumers, you baka), then what is the point of their business?
Other than to troll others, of course.
Re: Re: Re:
“What do they have on the market that people want?”
silvercat, I respect your questioning what they have that people want. Thing is (trust me it’s a problem) Intelectual Ventures buys up any ad-hock patents or, on the flipside, actual legitimate patents, they can and they squat on them without licensing them out in the hopes someone will violate them.
So they really do have things people need as references to patents so people can make their inventions are required. Thing is, they either steel the invention or refuse to license the essential patent out.
Re: Re:
“Do you actually have any evidence that IV is a “giant tax on companies who actually innovate”?”
Research is a difficult task, are you incapable?
Re: Re: Re:
Research is a difficult task, are you incapable?
Mike has made a career in calling out others for making baseless claims. The ironic part is that he does the same with alarming frequency. Mike can’t back up that claim, just like so many other claims he makes. It’s funny how that works.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Do you actually have any evidence that IV is a “giant tax on companies who actually innovate”?”
Maybe people are lazy, or just being obtuse
Patent trolls cost $29 billion a year: study
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/patent-trolls-cost-29-billion-a-year-study/25016
Paying the Troll Toll: Patent Trolls Prey on Startups
http://www.project-disco.org/competition/paying-the-troll-toll-patent-trolls-prey-on-startups/
and many more …..
Re: Re:
I claim to have 666.666 active monetization programs and 2 ponies. BEAT THAT.
Ahem. Useful for what, what has been actually made operational from all those patents? And if they are suing companies that came with the same ideas, how better their products are?
Chances are your answers are “None” and “They have no product in the market”. So sounds like you are just whining mr AC.
Re: Re:
Anyone can claim “we do this” or “we have that” on their websites, that doesn’t always mean it’s true.
A great example is MyCleanPC:
http://www.mycleanpc.com/?sc=mcp_sem_001&pr=PCO
They claim to clean out your PC of viruses and registry errors. They even offer a free scan that checks for them by adding fake viruses and adding shit to your registry.
Read my comment below about how IV really works, it’s from Wikipedia.
Re: Re:
From their website, they claim to have “nearly 40,000 in active monetization programs.” Sounds to me like their patents are quite useful, hence all the licensing.
People who invent things and take things to market don’t call their products “monetization programs.”
All they do is buy patents and extort payments out of the people who actually do work.
From the description in the news article, Intelectual Ventures is patenting ideas and specifications. The article creates the Impression that the ‘invention’ process consista of generating ideas and writing them up for as many patenta as possible.
The seems likely as the tour was of offices and not laboratorie, as only software can be ‘invented’ in an office. This could be prevented by requiring that the invention is demonstrated to a qualified patent examiner. Originally the patent office required a prototype or working model for a patent.
Could the Patents created by Intelectual Ventures be challenged on the grounds that they are speculative, being the patenting of ideas without any effort to develop a practical implementaion.
The other possibe challenge may be lack of sufficient information to enable implementation of the patent. Look for missing details obout implementing a critical component.
For anyone interested as to why they are dangerous:
Intellectual Ventures’ purchased patents have largely been kept secret, though press releases with Telcordia and Transmeta indicated some or all of their patent portfolios were sold to the company. Investigative journalism suggests that the company makes most of its income from lawsuits and licensing of already-existing inventions, rather than from its own innovation. Intellectual Ventures has been described as a “patent troll” by Shane Robison,[17] CTO of Hewlett Packard and others, allegedly accumulating patents not in order to develop products around them but with the goal to pressure large companies into paying licensing fees. Recent reports indicate that Verizon and Cisco made payments of $200 million to $400 million for investment and access to the Intellectual Ventures portfolio.[18]
On December 8, 2010, Intellectual Ventures filed its first lawsuit, accusing Check Point, McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro, Elpida, Hynix, Altera, Lattice and Microsemi of patent infringement. The company has also been accused of hiding behind shell companies for earlier lawsuits,[19] an accusation consistent with the findings of NPR’s Planet Money in July 2011.[20] The episode, which also aired as “When Patents Attack” of This American Life,[21] was dedicated to software patents, prominently featuring Intellectual Ventures. It includes sources accusing Intellectual Ventures of pursuing a strategy encouraging mutually assured destruction, including Chris Sacca calling Nathan Myhrvold’s argument that Intellectual Ventures is offering protection from lawsuits a “mafia style shakedown”.[22]
Intellectual Ventures staff are active in lobbying and testifying in court on United States patent policy. It reports its purchasing activity as of spring 2010 has sent $350 million to individual inventors[23] and $848 million to small and medium size enterprises as well as returning “approximately $1 billion” to investors without filing any lawsuits.[24] In March 2009 Intellectual Ventures announced expansion into China, India, Japan, Korea and Singapore to build partnerships with prominent scientists and institutions in Asia to create and market inventions.[25]
While the company claims to assist independent inventors, one finding claimed that they have been unable to note a single case of aid they have provided to a single, independent inventor.[21] The practice of legally prosecuting infringement of patents that are not used by the company to produce goods or services has been referred to as “patent trolling” by investigative journalists and industrialists.[26]
Re: Re:
Source?
Re: Re: Re:
Any time Ninja 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take notice the article isn’t flagged.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks, I see you posted the source at the same time I asked for it lol
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well as they say, great minds think alike…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
^_^
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
fools never differ
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
So if we agree and find some common ground that somehow makes us fools my good man?
Re: Re:
Citation here is meant for the above statement I have made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
It does not matter anymore what masnick says, as we all know he has his paymasters to please..
you masnick have lost what little credability you had.. after all to quote yourself:
“I’m a Google Shill”
Re: Re:
U mad bro?
Re: Re:
U mad bro?
Re: Re:
U mad bro?
Re: Re:
U mad bro?
Re: Re:
U mad bro?
Re: Re:
U mad bro?
Re: Re:
U mad bro?
Re: Re: Re:
uh, currents did this. >
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two bits of advice. And mind you it’s out of kindness and respect 🙂
1. Never use the “U mad Bro” meme. It makes arguments very invalid and shows how old you are.
2. I have a feeling you hit the back button a few times so the spamming of it is quite forgivable. Try not to do it again 🙂
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I never hit the back button, ever, google currents didn’t update the page any time I hit “submit”
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ok, so you hit the “Submit” button when the page wouldn’t load. Be patient next time is all 🙂
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You don’t seem to understand.
Google currents doesn’t update the submit page.
It does, however, update the page when you hit “preview”. Hit submit on the preview page, same thing.
Its a bug, not a lack of patience. I know how these things work.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Ok. Thank you for informing of my error there 🙂
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Its all good, thanks for the suggestions 🙂
Re: Re:
*Snicker*
“You are an idiot, ah ha ha ha ha ha!”
http://youareanidiot.org/
That is what I think of people who take stuff out of context.
If you remember…
The title was “Apparently I’m a Google shill and didn’t even know it.”
Please remember to stop taking stuff out of context.
Re: Re: Re:
and apparently he’s right,
Re: Re:
Ah, you really have a one track mind, darryl 🙂
Of course, that comes with being the lowest denominator troll.
Re: Re: Re:
ooh,, where did you learn ab out the lowest denominator ??? HAHAHA,
least im not a fuckwit..
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What, it was a secret?
Well, at least you know you are the lowest denominator. I guess we weren’t supposed to find out, but them’s the breaks, darryl.
You can’t post the worst reasoned crap in the history of the internet and not expect to be outed.
I am sure, not a single inventor was force to sell their patents to IV, and I am equally sure that they would not have sold them if they did not believe it was a good deal.
you make out that groups like IV are forcing people to sell patents is a blantant lie..
I dont know what masnick thinks happens when someone sells a patent, or the reasons why they would choose to do that.
But I do know what inventers are thinking, and I understand perfectly clearly why they would choose to do so.. why don’t you ‘get it’ masnick ???
you claim your smart (too smart for your own google).. so why display such stupidity and ignorance ? is it willful ? or are you naturally that way ?
Re: Re:
Rabble rabble.
Re: Re: Re:
TGT
The Google Troll..
babble babble..
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Good one darryl.
How much does Google pay YOU?
Re: Re:
“I am sure, not a single inventor was force to sell their patents to IV, and I am equally sure that they would not have sold them if they did not believe it was a good deal.”
My end goal here is to give you an alternate point of view so bare with me if you can.
You’re correct, Intelectual Ventures does not force people to give them their patents. However, they do offer to bring your patented invention to market.
Problem is they haven’t brought any products to market and they
are squatting on other peoples ideas that were given in good faith
that they would do their jobs and bring said inventions
to market.
Re: Re: Re:
no they do not offer to bring the invention to market, they is why they pay them money, they BUY the patent, and the rights to it..
it is then up to them to try to recoup their investment, if IV stated that a requirement of their deal was to bring it to market that would form part of the contract, and the inventors would have the ability to claim breach of contract and void the deal.
that does not occur, but at least you understand in part how money is exchanged for good and services..
that a contract is a contract, and an agreement is what it says.. they are paid money for the patent, so the IV company can do what they like with the patent, they can burn it if they want, the inventor does not care, he’s been paid, and paid what he wanted, (otherwise he would not of accepted the deal), and everyone is happy,, except for the freetards who want a piece of the action with no requirement to invest anything..
again, no one forced the inventors to enter this agreement, so clearly it is an agreement they AGREE with, that they accept the terms and condictions of, and are HAPPY to do..
again, they get everything they want, otherwise they would not enter into that arraingement in the first place..
Re: Re: Re:
if you sell a car to someone, you dont get to state what they can or cannot do with that car, as they paid you money so that they can do what they like with it..
if you want something specific done with your car after you sell it, THEN DONT SELL IT, because your stupid if you believe that you maintain any ownership over something, you recieved money as payment for, so that ownership now belongs to someone else..
no you cant sell your car to someone, and hope they will let you drive it, or expect to get money from it should they decide to make your car into a taxi for profit.. you’ve made your money.. they purchased the car and took on the risk of that investment, they might spend $100,000 for a taxi license and lose money.. not your problem. you are not taking a risk, you made your money..
same with patents, and well EVERYTHING, except in masnicks fantisy world..
Re: Re:
I am sure, not a single inventor was force to sell their patents to IV, and I am equally sure that they would not have sold them if they did not believe it was a good deal.
Hey, if you’re an inventor, and can make money by selling ideas (or pieces of paper that say you came up with an idea), I have no problem with that. None at all.
I have a problem when someone says they came up with an idea, but that no one else can use it without paying them money – or else we’ll send our thugs(lawyers) to destroy(extort) you and your business.
were just lucky that the actual inventors who are actually inventing things are happy for IV to BUY their inventions and to sell those inventions to IV..
if they actually believed the bullshit that masnick would have us believe, then they would simply refuse IV’s money and keep their inventions.. once again no one is forcing them to take money off IV, they CHOOSE to do it of their own free will..
how would you go about putting ‘spin’ on that simple fact Masnick ??
Re: Re:
Rabble rabble?
you also NEVER consider the flip side of the issue do you masnick !!.
That is the simple fact that groups like IV not only pay the inventors money for their inventions (patents), but they also take on the risk of not being able to derive a profit from that invention..
YOU NEVER, EVER state the fact that around 97% of all inventions never provide a return on their investment, and of the 3% remaining it is usually out of the reach financially to develop that invention into a popular product..
so groups like IV pay the inventors real money, that rewards them for their invention, for a price AGREED upon by both parties that both parties are happy with (NO ONE IS FORCED) then IV takes the risk of trying to gain a return on their investment.
and after all masnick,, you’re a paid Google shill.. you said so yourself.. and by your own standards..
Re: Re:
Rabble rabble!
Re: Re:
“so groups like IV pay the inventors real money, that rewards them for their invention, for a price AGREED upon by both parties that both parties are happy with (NO ONE IS FORCED) then IV takes the risk of trying to gain a return on their investment.”
They don’t bring the product to market as promised. Try to use the reply function next time you decide to respond to people, otherwise it’s just nonsense and spam.
However, if you can make a comment or response that sufficiently rebuttals in an adult manor, contains logical and anylitical thought, and no spamming or trolling, I encourage you to do so.
Re: Re: Re:
idiot,, they dont make any promises to the inventors to bring it to market, (rember the 97% that dont make it regardless)..
NO, stupid, they pay the inventor money, otherwise the inventor would NOT sell it ..
the inventor gets what he wants (money for his work), and the investment company gets what they want a potential product (and associated risk), and all sides get what they want..
except for the pirate mikes who think they are somehow mission out.. which they are not..
Re: Re: Re:
whats the point, dicks like you ignore it anyway, unless it comes for the oricle mansuck, sorry masdick, sorry masnick, (I mean Pirate Mike).. you would not know a logical reasoned argument if at crawled up your ass and died..
Re: Re: Re:
are you trying to say that the inventors ARE forced to sell to these groups, or that someone they feel ‘ripped off’, and if that is the case why would they sell in the first place ??
masnicks argument, and your support of it, is a circular argument, based on lies..
masnick is fully aware it is an agreement between the IV group and the inventor, and both parties have to option NOT TO UNDERTAKE that agreement.. So if you know that simple, BASIC FACT. then the rest of your argument breaks down and fall into the realm of bullshit.. and lies.. if you could show even ONE example of someone not having a choice and IV forcing someone to sell their patent against their specific wishes you might have an argument..
but that does not happen, so your entire argument is based on falue hoods, lies and bullshit spewing out of masnicks mouth.. and gladly eaten up by you idiots..
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not the idiot taking three posts in a row to make one comment dude.
quick masnick, post alot of shit, so your Google Shill post gets lost in the noise !!!!..
that will work LOL
Re: Re:
rabble rabble!
OZ
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
That bout sums it up…
Re: OZ
To whom are you refering?
Re: Re: OZ
I refer to Intellectual Ventures.
They do the whole “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
Re: Re: Re: OZ
Awesome 🙂
Software patents aren't worth the paper ...
Software patents make no sense, because they are written in a computer language. At best, software patents are a derivative work of the original software language. At worst, they are patenting of an idea. In either case, software patents should not exist.
The only thing that might make sense is software copyrights.
Re: Software patents aren't worth the paper ...
Every time I read about some lawsuit that is going on about someone infringing on another persons patent/program it boggles my mind.
I always come to the same line of thinking. If you patent “hello world” then your patenting the IDEA of hello world because it can be done in any language. However if your patenting “hello world” in C# your patenting something the was built by someone else for the express purpose of you writing “hello world”. Either way this does not work. I just can now see how so many people do not see that.
Re: Re: Software patents aren't worth the paper ...
“hello world” would not be patented, nor would the specific code be able to be patented.. only a total moron would think that.. or someone possibly as stupid as you are masnick..
but I dont expect many of you masnick programmed shills would be able to work that out…
if you could see a patent on ‘hello world’ it would probably be titled “A method for generating repeating messages” (as the short title) and would probably outline a method of displaying text (hello world) and describing a METHOD of being able to repeat that same message..
it would be documented in BLOCK DIAGRAM FORM… NOT IN CODE !!!!!
that method might be “train a masnick stooge to type the required message, then have that same monkey type that message again, advance one line and type that message again..
it’s just a method of achieving the display of “hello world’ over and over again..
you might have the wording, display message, advance one line on display, display same message, advance one line, display message..
but if you believe for a second (as masnick would have you think). it would look like..
10 Print “Hello world”
20 Gogo 10
But as these usually is NO code in software patents there is nothing to copyright.. apart from the pictures and document itself, which is a representation of the patent, NOT the patent itself.
The document is not the patent, all documents are protected by copyright, in method outlines on that document, if accepted as a valid patent that outlines THE METHOD of achieving something, is what is patented..
and one day, when you grow up, and get to actually learn to read, and read a software patent, you’ll (might) understand.. but it’s doubtful
if you believe that, you’ll believe any bullshit masnick throws at you..
Re: Re: Re: Software patents aren't worth the paper ...
This is the longest derp I have ever seen.
Re: Software patents aren't worth the paper ...
hey dick, ever read a software patent ??? masnick has even posted some here on techshit !!!.. did you bother to look at them ??
did you happen to see much “computer language”.. ie software ??
NO FUCKWIT.. im quite sure you would not be able to recognise ‘computer language’ is you were smashed in the face with it.
Re: Re: Software patents aren't worth the paper ...
More derping and name calling gets you nowhere.
No products!?!
Wow, what a misguided and one-sided article, Mike. What about their supreme gift to mankind, Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking?
It is 2,438 pages of cooking goodness! It is 52.2 pounds! That is only $95,785,440 per pound, which is a bargain at twice the cost.
{snark off}
http://www.amazon.com/Modernist-Cuisine-The-Science-Cooking/dp/0982761007
what do you know about patents?
“Innovation is about bringing products to market. Trolling is about forcing actual innovators to pay up for succeeding.”
You write like a paid puppet of large infringers.
?Patent troll?
Call it what you will…patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: ?we?re using your invention and we?re not going to pay or stop?. This is just dissembling by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft. The fact is, many of the large multinationals and their puppets who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so.
It?s about property rights. They should not only be for the rich and powerful. Show me a country with weak or ineffective property rights and I?ll show you a weak economy and high unemployment.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don?t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and “insights” to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world?s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don?t have any.
what do you know about patents?
Yeah, because copying and pasting the same things over and over somehow makes you more convincing, you little shitstain.
Software patents aren't worth the paper ...
Your ability to look at only the very literal form of what I was talking about only goes to show you are either 6 years of age or you have the mental capacity of one.
That aside you some what prove the point I was making if you do not patent CODE you patent the IDEA which goes against what a patent is. So I thank you for your idiocy and your help.
Software patents aren't worth the paper ...
Your ability to look at only the very literal form of what I was talking about only goes to show you are either 6 years of age or you have the mental capacity of one.
That aside, you some what prove the point I was making if you do not patent CODE you patent the IDEA which goes against what a patent is. So I thank you for your idiocy and your help.
That aside, you must no nothing of programming because your inability to understand what I was saying is astounding. The METHOD would either be the idea of the program or how to do the idea even if it is not written in code all programing language allow you to do the same thing it would be like someone patenting how to breathe.
Software patents aren't worth the paper ...
You can’t technically ‘smash’ someone in the face with ‘computer language’ and again you show how little you know of anything.
You I would assume mean ‘computer/program code’ which is digital and can not be used to smack anyone unless you print it out but then your are hitting them with paper still not code.
‘Computer Language’ as you so ignorantly called it can arguable be defined as the language the computer communicates in or called ‘machine code’ which is ones and zeros (I know this is technical for you I am sorry I am trying to explain in the simplest way possible). Again its digital and can not be use to ‘smack’ people in the face with, and more to the point not even what we are talking about we are talking about ‘Programming Code’ which is designed so our feeble minds can control/use computers in meaningful ways. There is a difference although people like you will not be likely to see it, and for that I do pity you.