I do not think Intellectual Ventures is invulnerable.
Here is why-
Let us say IV sues Company X for infringing on certain patents. The argument is that IV does not develop anything and is therefore immune from a counter-suit launched by Company X.
Retaliation can be as follows:
1. Company X studies the connections of Intellectual Ventures to its clients (C1, C2, C3) and its financial backers (B1, B2).
2. Company X studies the products/services offered by C1, C2, C3, etc and other clients (C4, C5, etc) of backers B1 and B2.
3. Company X purchases patents or ties up with Patent Pooling Organizations (PPO) which have patents in fields that affect C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5.
4. Company X/PPO brings one or more patent lawsuits against one or more of the client C1 through C5 (with damages equal to twice the amount demanded by IV).
5. Company X/PPO thus brings pressure on IV to back off.
Company X and the PPO sends a message that it is not in anyone's interest to settle with IV.
As Ben Franklin would say, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately".
Here is a paper from Ron Rivest, the cryptographer:
http://theory.csail.mit.edu/~rivest/Rivest-TheThreeBallotVotingSystem.pdf
Abstract:
We present a new paper-based voting method with attractive security properties. Not only can each voter verify that her vote is recorded as she intended, but she gets a “receipt” that she can take home that can be used later to verify that her vote is actually included in the final tally. Her receipt, however, does not allow her to prove to anyone else how she voted.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Pandu Rao.
Intellectual Ventures is not invulnerable
I do not think Intellectual Ventures is invulnerable.
Here is why-
Let us say IV sues Company X for infringing on certain patents. The argument is that IV does not develop anything and is therefore immune from a counter-suit launched by Company X.
Retaliation can be as follows:
1. Company X studies the connections of Intellectual Ventures to its clients (C1, C2, C3) and its financial backers (B1, B2).
2. Company X studies the products/services offered by C1, C2, C3, etc and other clients (C4, C5, etc) of backers B1 and B2.
3. Company X purchases patents or ties up with Patent Pooling Organizations (PPO) which have patents in fields that affect C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5.
4. Company X/PPO brings one or more patent lawsuits against one or more of the client C1 through C5 (with damages equal to twice the amount demanded by IV).
5. Company X/PPO thus brings pressure on IV to back off.
Company X and the PPO sends a message that it is not in anyone's interest to settle with IV.
As Ben Franklin would say, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately".
The Three Ballot Voting System
Here is a paper from Ron Rivest, the cryptographer: http://theory.csail.mit.edu/~rivest/Rivest-TheThreeBallotVotingSystem.pdf
Abstract: