Intellectual Ventures' Patents Starting To Show Up In Lawsuits

from the the-beast-awakens? dept

Intellectual Ventures, of course, is the Nathan Myhrvold company that has been building up a huge portfolio of patents with which to get big tech companies to pay many millions of dollars to not get sued -- and, according to many, to get a cut of future deals as well, making the whole thing sound suspiciously like a pyramid scheme. However, the company has been quite careful to avoid actually suing anyone (despite setting up all sorts of shell companies commonly used in such lawsuits). From what we've heard from people who have been in or around IV, this has been a conscious decision to avoid attracting too much ill will and scorn. It lets the company pretend to take the high road, when people point out that its actions seem like the commonly defined "patent troll" on steroids. "But we haven't sued anyone" it can claim. As if the threat of being sued isn't a big enough weapon.

But, a year ago, we noted that the company appeared to be getting antsy. While it was bringing in some hefty fees from a small group of companies who bought into the equity pyramid (which neatly lets the world outside be confused over what's "investment" and what's "revenue"), there was concern that investors were getting impatient. Pouring billions of dollars into a company that isn't doing much can make some investors a little anxious. And while we still don't know of any direct lawsuits, Zusha Elinson has noticed that Intellectual Ventures' former patents are starting to show up in court, often involving some of the most well known names normally associated with "patent trolling." Now, it's clear that IV sold the patent, but what's not clear is if it still has a financial interest in it. The thinking is that IV may have "sold" the patent, with part of the terms being that it gets a cut of any money obtained via that patent. This way, IV gets to have its cake and eat it too. It still can claim it doesn't sue anyone, but it brings in revenues from exactly those types of lawsuits.

As Joe Mullin notes in the last link above, this is one of the massive problems with the way patent infringement lawsuits work today. Via different shell companies, those who have an interest in a patent can be hidden to protect their "good name" while still allowing them to actively have companies sued via that patent.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Intuit Pays $120 Million 'Don't Sue Us' Tax To Intellectual Ventures

from the money-wasted dept

It's no secret that I have tremendous problems with Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures, which many have described as the world's biggest patent "trolling" operation. The company has raised a ton of money and uses it to buy up thousands of patents. While it hasn't sued anyone, Myhrvold has made clear that's always an option. The company has remained incredibly secret, but it has somehow convinced some big companies to pay hundreds of millions to IV. Due to the secrecy, the details aren't clear -- and some of the deals apparently are a mix of "licensing" and an equity investment. But, still, the numbers are stunning. The latest, as pointed out by Stephen Kinsella is that Intuit has apparently paid $120 million to IV. For what? The right not to get sued. Think about that for a second. This is a pure dead weight net loss to society. It's $120 million that Intuit could have put towards further innovating, or to pay off investors via a dividend. Instead, it goes towards nothing productive, in terms of actually creating new products. It will now likely be used to buy up more patents so that IV can get similar black hole money grabs from other companies, as well. It's like a black hole where real innovation goes to die.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Intellectual Ventures Gets Transmeta Patents

from the patent-hoarding dept

Transmeta, of course, was the massively hyped semiconductor company that was going to revolutionize the computing world with inexpensive microprocessors. Things didn't exactly work out as planned, as the company never was able to match the hype. By 2006, the company had been reduced to suing for patent infringement, as it no longer was making any products. Basically, it was the classic story we've seen over and over again: a company fails in the market place, and then falls back on suing those who actually succeeded. Letting such companies sue seems to go against every concept of free market capitalism. It's letting the marketplace losers make a claim on the earnings of the marketplace winners.

Still, Transmeta was having some problems with its go-it-alone strategy, so now it comes as little surprise that it's sold off its patents to Nathan Myhrvold's patent hoarding monster, Intellectual Ventures, whose business model is very troubling to those of us who believe in letting companies actually innovate. Myhrvold has been squeezing tons of money out of companies to effectively immunize them from future lawsuits from the massive number of patents he's been acquiring. It's taking money out of bringing products to market, and giving it to those who have nothing to market. It's basically a multi-billion dollar example of a patent system gone wrong.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New Patent Buying Firm Swears It'll Never Litigate Over Its Patents

from the until-it-needs-money...? dept

When Intellectual Ventures first came about, Nathan Myhrvold convinced tech companies to back him, with a business plan that was all about pooling resources to buy patents for defensive purposes. The original pitch was that by joining with IV, you could make use of the patent portfolio to protect yourself against potential patent lawsuits. Except that once things got going, Myhrvold admitted that to make this work, the threat of also suing people for patent infringement had to be on the table (though, it hasn't reached that point yet). So, consider me quite skeptical of some former IV execs who have gone off to start a new firm that sounds suspiciously like IV's original plan.

It involves getting a bunch of tech companies to pay up, so that this new company, RPX Corp., can buy up a bunch of patents "for defensive purposes only." The company insists it won't sue anyone with these patents. But, of course, the whole thing makes you wonder. For the companies that buy into RPX's deal (or IV's for that matter), they end up spending a bunch of money for a rather weak form of insurance that protects them in the very rare case where they might be able to use a patent in either firm's portfolio to maybe, possibly protect itself against an infringement lawsuit. It won't stop others from suing, of course. And, if RPX is serious about not suing for infringement, then why won't other firms just free ride? They get the benefit of those patents not being in litigious hands, but without having to pay. The whole situation just shows how ridiculous the patent litigation world is these days, that a bunch of companies feel the need to fund other companies to buy up patents just so they're not sued. That's not quite "promoting the progress."

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Nathan Myhrvold Now Capitalizing On Failed University Patent Intitiatives

from the privatizing-publicly-funded-research dept

We've discussed, in the past, the infamous Bayh-Dole Act, which tried to push universities to patent more of their research, with the idea that it would make research more commercializable. In fact, the unintended consequences were to significantly harm university research. Universities quickly set up "technology transfer" offices, with the idea of selling off patents for tons of money, but the vast majority of universities discovered that such technology transfer offices cost a lot more than they made, and so they were a drain on university resources (you know, which could have gone to basic research). On top of that, the new focus on patenting everything caused researchers to be much more afraid to share ideas and concepts with colleagues, greatly diminishing the value of research or the ability of researchers to explore other areas where colleagues might have already applied for patents, for fear of "infringing."

However, it looks like Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures, which we've discussed at length, in the past, is looking to take advantage of this situation. With so many university technology transfer offices losing money, IV has been going around and signing deals with universities. Basically, IV gives those tech transfer offices some money upfront, allowing IV to effectively add each university's patent pool to its own portfolio that it uses to go around demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from companies to "protect" them against any future lawsuits.

Effectively, the end result is less actual research being done at universities, while some guys who don't actually build anything get rich. And, oh yeah, the companies that actually do stuff are poorer. Doesn't something seem highly suspect about this scenario?

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Bill Gates' New Career? Patent Troll For Nathan Myhrvold?

from the kinder-capitalism? dept

Plenty of folks have been wondering just what Bill Gates is up to now that he's left his full-time position at Microsoft. Longtime rabble-rouser theodp has alerted us to one thing that Bill Gates is spending at least some of his time on: a bunch of patent applications for a company named "Searete LLC" -- including this one for rewarding influencers and another for a method to inject fluids into animals.

So, what's Searete? Well, it appears (warning: pdf file) that it's one of the many ultra secret shell front companies for Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures, a company that unabashedly plans to be a huge patent tollbooth on just about any kind of innovation. We've already noted that he's been setting up shell companies as part of the operation's secrecy.

In some articles about Myhrvold's methods, it talks about how he hosts these big dinners, where he invites a bunch of big thinkers to sit around and talk, has some lawyers sit off to the side writing down everything they say, and then turns the discussions into patents. My guess is that these Bill Gates Searete patents fall into that camp (some of the other big names on some of the patents are folks like Danny Hillis and Craig Mundie, and we're waiting for Seinfeld's name to show up on a patent for computers that are moist and chewy like cake). Still, it makes you wonder why Bill Gates is letting Nathan Myhrvold lock up his ideas as part of his patent extortion scheme.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Intellectual Ventures Getting Antsy; Expect Lawsuits Soon

from the patent-saber-rattling dept

By this point, it should be rather clear what we think of Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures project. It's perhaps the biggest threat to innovation around, as Myhrvold is collecting a ton of patents (now up to 20,000 apparently) and pressuring companies to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get blanket licenses to avoid getting sued. It's a scam to shift money away from actual innovators and into the pockets of lawyers and speculators. For some reason, though, Myhrvold has a knack for getting press. His latest is a profile in the Wall Street Journal that covers much the same ground as previous profiles in places like Business Week and Fortune.

So what is new in this one? Well, less than a year after raising a $1 billion patent hoarding fund, he's out raising a new $2.5 billion fund. So it seems like he's good at getting press and raising money -- but not so much actually making money at this point (well, Myhrvold personally is doing fine, since the piece notes that he gets a 2% management fee, just like a VC). And that's where the saber rattling comes in. The article notes that Cisco and Verizon have paid up between $200 and $400 million as licensees -- though, to make it more confusing some of that is invested back into the fund for equity. Thus, it's not really clear as to how much is being used specifically to license patents. The article also highlights that some of Myhrvold's earlier investors are going to start wondering when the fund is actually going to bring in some real revenue.

Another oddity is the vast amount of secrecy surrounding Intellectual Ventures. Anyone who sells a patent to the company or who licenses patents from the company are required to sign extensive non-disclosure agreements. When asked why, Myhrvold skirts the question by claiming many companies don't want to reveal what they're doing with IV. If that's true, though, why do they need NDAs in the first place? The company also uses an array of secret shell companies to go around buying patents, again raising questions about what it's doing. If the company is really so proud of its business model and doesn't think it's shameful, why is it hiding behind shell companies like garden variety patent hoarders. But, as we've learned, patent hoarders very much rely on secrecy to convince others to pay up.

And, then, of course, there are the myths that Myhrvold loves to repeat, but no reporters ever push him on. He insists that those who disagree with his business model are merely "infringers." Yet, as we've all seen, so many patent infringement lawsuits these days are hardly about actual infringement, and much more about a company that didn't succeed in the marketplace suing one that did. He also repeats the myth that patent lawsuits are decreasing, claiming that the number of lawsuits peaked in 2004 and has been declining. That's misleading because it ignores the fact that patent hoarders are now suing larger and larger groups of companies in a single lawsuit meaning that the number of companies being sued has been increasing rapidly.

Either way, Myhrvold may want to close that new fund as quickly as possible. The Bilski ruling that could put an end to software and business method patents is expected sometime in October, and it could put a big dent in his patent portfolio.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Myhrvold's Myth: Invention Capital

from the cute-phrase,-dumb-idea dept

Nathan Myhrvold may have a way with words, but it doesn't mean that what he's doing with Intellectual Ventures makes any sense. At the D: conference yesterday, Myrhvold tried to position his company as being in the "invention capital" business, talking about how he's creating a model to fund inventions, and even comparing himself to Thomas Edison (while dancing around several questions that tried to get him to point out what the company has actually done other than hoard patents). This is a modification on the easily debunked claim he made a couple weeks ago about how owning a patent and not using it to build a product was the same as investing in a company and not working there.

But, the real problem goes right back to the core issue that was brought out in Malcolm Gladwell's profile of Myhrvold. Ideas are popping up everywhere. It's the execution that matters. Lots of folks are having similar ideas at about the same time, but those ideas are meaningless without the corresponding execution (at which point many people often realize the original idea wasn't that interesting in the first place). So, with ideas being plentiful and execution being scarce, it doesn't make sense to "invest" in ideas separate from the execution. The only way that it would make sense is if you then were taking those ideas and artificially trying to limit their usefulness -- which is exactly what Myhrvold is doing with IV. He's artificially trying to limit the use of ideas, and make it more expensive for anyone to execute on those ideas. The very concept of what he's doing is to hold back innovation and progress. That's the exact opposite of what the patent system was intended to do.

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Delusions Of Nathan Myhrvold

from the misrepresenting-the-truth dept

Nathan Myhrvold may not have done much of note yet with Intellectual Ventures, but he sure is good at getting press attention. It seems to come in waves, too, with multiple stories popping up all around the same time. So, after last week's Malcolm Gladwell-penned story on Myrhvold that accidentally made the case for why Intellectual Ventures isn't needed, PC World is running an unintentionally hilarious interview with Myrhvold, where he says some of the most ridiculous things, and the interviewer doesn't call him on a single one. When asked whether or not there's a patent litigation "crisis" Myrhvold notes:

"If I compare the number of lawsuits to the number of patents that exist, it's down. If I compare it to the number of patent holders, it's down. Patent litigation has grown, but it's actually grown less fast than lots of other things have grown."

That's misleading in many different ways. He basically is trying to hide the massive growth in patent lawsuits (and monetary awards) by claiming that if you look at the ratio of lawsuits to patents, that's down. But that's misleading, because the sheer number of patents and patent applications has exploded due to some changes to patent laws, as well as court decisions that widely expanded the scope of patents. Add to that some ridiculous lawsuit outcomes, rewarding insane amounts of money for questionable patents, and the patent office gets overwhelmed with more applications. That the percentage of lawsuits to patents has gone down is fairly meaningless, when the absolute numbers are pretty clear.

"Lots of technology companies that are gigantic today weren't gigantic five or 10 years ago. They were little startups that grew like weeds. Or they were a company that acquired little startups. Many of these companies took whatever it took to become successful. Along the way, they probably copied lots of other people's ideas. And the reason they complain about patent litigation and claim that there's a problem is, they know they stole lots of stuff. And they're afraid someone's going to ask them for the money, and they'd prefer not to pay."

Notice that he doesn't provide a single example. Notice that he conflates "theft" with "infringement." Notice that he doesn't even consider the idea that there was likely independent invention. Notice that he doesn't admit that it was competition, not patents, that drove much of this innovation. Notice that he doesn't seem to mind the idea that someone who lost in the marketplace deserves money from those who won.

"It's very hard to come and say, "Look, I've become a billionaire personally, and my company has got a $100 million market capitalization, and we did this by copying lots of ideas from universities and small companies we never paid. But we'd like a free pass." So instead, you say, "Oh my God, there's this catastrophe, patent litigation is threatening to stop all innovation." What evidence is there of it? There's none."

And here Myhrvold is either outright lying or he's ignorant (he can let us know which one). First of all no one has ever said that patent litigation is threatening to stop all innovation. They've just said that it is slowing the pace of innovation. And there's plenty of evidence to support that, despite Myhrvold's claim that there's none. James Bessen and Michael Meurer just came out with a whole book detailing much of the evidence, and David Levine and Michele Boldrin also have a book with even more evidence. Did Myhrvold simply not know about these? Or is he lying to PC World?

Then he's asked about whether or not it's okay for someone to get a patent and then not do anything with it, to which he responds:

I would say, yes, there's nothing wrong with that. And the analogy I would use is, it'd be like saying, "Is it OK for someone to buy a chunk of the business and never show up there?" And the answer is, yes. We call them venture capitalists or shareholders. To have a system of taking risk and building valuable companies, you have to have people that are financiers or have other specialized roles.

That sounds nice, but that analogy doesn't work in the slightest. Patent hoarding isn't like an investor or a shareholder. It's about someone holding onto a patent and then popping up and suing when someone else does something. A shareholder or an investor is a win-win relationship based on a fair transaction. A company gets some money, and the shareholder gets some equity. Patent hoarding is quite different. It's about holding onto a patent and then using it to legally threaten someone else or prevent them from doing work and then demanding money out of them after the fact. To equate that with an investor is simply incorrect.

I'm sure Myhrvold is a smart guy -- and he may truly believe that he's helping inventors and changing the world -- but he's either being purposely misleading or he's ignorant when it comes to patents and how they interact with the economy.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Ideas Are Everywhere... So Why Do We Limit Them?

from the gladwell-missing-the-point dept

Malcolm Gladwell is a truly fantastic writer. However, sometimes he gets so interested in making a story sound good that he misses the real point. His latest piece for the New Yorker starts out as a puff piece on Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures (which gets way too many puff pieces), but then turns into a much more interesting article about how just about every major invention or scientific or mathematical discovery came from multiple, entirely independent people at almost exactly the same time. As Gladwell points out -- rarely is it about "genius," but about the fact that all of the previous work in the field naturally leads to this end result -- and if it wasn't one person discovering it, someone else would. The article lists out big name invention after invention that all have "multiples" -- multiple entirely independent individuals who came up with the same thing at the same time. Not only that, but almost always the person who gets credit for the discovery isn't actually the person who discovered it. In fact, someone even coined a term for it: Stigler's Law: "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer."

Gladwell uses this to talk up what Myhrvold is doing, suggesting that Intellectual Ventures is really about continuing that process, getting those ideas out there -- but he misses the much bigger point: if these ideas are the natural progression, almost guaranteed to be discovered by someone sooner or later, why do we give a monopoly on these ideas to a single discoverer? Myhrvold's whole business model is about monopolizing all of these ideas and charging others (who may have discovered them totally independently) to actually do something with them. Yet, if Gladwell's premise is correct (and there's plenty of evidence included in the article), then Myhrvold's efforts shouldn't be seen as a big deal. After all, if it wasn't Myhrvold and his friends doing it, others would very likely come up with the same thing sooner or later.

This is especially highlighted in one anecdote in the article, of Myhrvold holding a dinner with a bunch of smart people... and an attorney. The group spent dinner talking about a bunch of different random ideas, with no real goal or purpose -- just "chewing the rag" as one participant put it. But the next day the attorney approached them with a typewritten description of 36 different inventions that were potentially patentable out of the dinner. When a random "chewing the rag" conversation turns up 36 monopolies, something is wrong. Those aren't inventions that deserve a monopoly.

What Gladwell misses (though others have discussed it in detail) is that while ideas may be a dime a dozen, executing on those ideas is what's difficult. Innovation isn't idea generation. Innovation is taking an idea and making it do something useful. Yet, in giving monopoly rights to Myhrvold and his friends, we make it much more difficult for others (even those who discovered the same things totally independently) to help actually make them useful.

In the end, the Gladwell article inadvertently makes the best case against Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures, while hyping up the company at the same time. It's a strange disconnect, and it's too bad that Gladwell, like so many others, fell so under Myhrvold's spell, that he missed the real story he held in his hands.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Nathan Myhrvold Ups The Ante; Raising $1 Billion To Hoard More Patents

from the just-can't-stop dept

Former Microsoft CTO, Nathan Myhrvold has been working for years on his plan to buy up as many patents as possible in order to force companies to pay him license fees. It's been mighty successful. He kicked it off with a $350 million fund, which he raised from tech companies using a bait-and-switch tactic. The original business plan he pitched was that he would license up all the leftover patents from failing dot coms and then build a pool that all the big Silicon Valley firms could use as a sort of "patent defense" shield against patent lawsuits from patent hoarding companies. Except, somewhere along the line, he seemed to realize that being on the side of patent hoarders was a lot more profitable -- so he used the big tech company's money to buy up a bunch of patents, and then started referring to his own investors as "the patent infringers lobby." Nice guy.

Of course, when people complain about what he's doing, he's quick to note that the company, Intellectual Ventures, has yet to sue anyone for patent infringement. That may be true, but as someone says in a new profile of the company in the Wall Street Journal, when you have a company that can "send letters to big companies saying, 'We have 800 patents that cover your business'... nobody can risk going to court, and they're just going to write you a check." The big news in the WSJ piece is that the $350 million to buy patents wasn't enough. Myhrvold is now out raising a $1 billion fund to buy up patents -- with a big target on sucking up patents from universities throughout Asia. This takes the concept of patent hoarding to entirely new levels. Traditionally, such firms are somewhat secretive and try to get a big win or two to fund a warchest for buying up more patents. In this case, Myhrvold seems to want to do the same thing, but in a much more professional looking manner. It's a total disgrace of the patent system, of course. About the only good news in the entire article is that Stanford and MIT refuse to work with Intellectual Ventures, stating: "We want to work with companies that are really going to develop the technology." Don't we all?

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..