Top Microsoft Execs Moonlighting For a Patent Bully 130
theodp writes "TechFlash reports that Microsoft bigwigs like Craig Mundie and Bill Gates (when he still worked there) have been secretly moonlighting at Intellectual Ventures (IV), the 'patent extortion fund' run by Bill's pal Nathan Myhrvold. A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that its technologists have been sitting in on IV-sponsored 'innovation sessions,' where their pearls of wisdom were captured and turned into patent applications for Searete, an IV shadow corporate entity. And if all goes well, Searete will soon enjoy exclusive rights to the fruit of the brainstorming, which includes processes ranging from determining and rewarding 'influencers' to treating malaria, HIV, TB, hepatitis, smallpox, and cancer."
If I were a Microsoft investor (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were a Microsoft investor I might be a little bit annoyed by high ranking employees contributing valuable IP to another company.
Microsoft is not doing its job as looking after its investors interests if it does not pursue the employees involved for this.
Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't surprise me that smart, greed oriented, affluent people will make use of their talent for some extra money, at whatever the cost to the public (who are largely now all have-nots).
But what happens when pressure exceeds tolerance? When the have-nots have had the last straw? We throw down the yoke and fight for what is ours, which is that right to evolve, either technologically or financially without interruption from outside constraints.
This is a sticky situation with patents. Patents are really only relevant if you are intending to profit from your invention, which is why I like Open Source. If something is released to the public freely, and is allowed to grow and expand on its own merit, no patent can stop it. If no money is gained, no patent holder can sue for money gained. No patent holder can sue to prevent Open Source, because their act of downloading the software to examine it constitutes agreement with the license.
Even worse case scenario, if some asshat managed to convince a judge that their patent was valid and that an Open Source project was in violation, there really is no recourse.
Now if you find that after years of extensive work, that some asshat is suing you for patent violation, you can contact the EFF and fight it. They will help.
With all the ideas floating around, it only goes so far that someone would argue they had an original thought. I mean that really is a tough sell to any judge. Good luck with that.
so this his how Bill is helpling Africa (Score:3, Insightful)
by giving them free meds, and then charging
them via patent royalties ?
Nice way to retire, bill (Score:5, Insightful)
I gotta hand it to you, Mr. Gates... Tell everyone you retired from Microsoft so you could free up time to monopolize biotech and a dozen other infrastructure-critical industries in this country... That's pretty clever. Seriously, are you mad because nobody invited you to prom? Is this some kind of Stepford Wives remix? I'm not saying this because I'm trying to be funny or sarcastic (well, mostly not sarcastic)... I really want to know why some people feel a compulsive need to consume or control every resource in the world. These people are like viruses... An ideological cancer, and it's disgusting to watch people who scream "But... MY INNOVATION!!! NOoooooooo!" Whenever someone asks why they're holding all the cards, but once they've got 'em, boy, outsource everything to a bunch of people who still use their hand to wipe their asses with, reduce the research budget to zilch, and then call yourselves innovators. Innovators of what... Slavery? Mass exploitation? Please. Have some originality... Try doing good for a change. If nothing else, it'll confuse the hell out of your detractors.
subverting the system (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys think that they're helping... but the people who do the work (I'm thinking of some poor grad student in a lab somewhere) to make a working device go to the patent office and discover that they don't have rights to their own work. It's wonderful.
If you don't (or can't) use a patent, at least make it free. A couple hours "brainstorming" should not trump a few years of hard work.
Re:Not secret (Score:5, Insightful)
The article makes it sound a lot more benign than it actually is. "We'll come up with great ideas, and let people use 'em for a fee!"
The problem is, as Edison is famous for saying, "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." Having a good idea is the easy part. Making it work in the real world is where all the problems crop up.
Making someone pay for the privilege of solving all the problems that you're too lazy/incompetent to solve? That just sucks.
ip law come full circle (Score:3, Insightful)
the idea of ip law is to reward those who innovate. the supposition being, that were there no legal protection, innovators would see the fruits of their intellectual pursuits go to established financial entities instead of themselves
and it is therefore the greatest irony that ip law is now used to suppress true innovation and protect entrenched financial entities. only the rich can afford the legal bully pulpit that ip law enables
ip law needs to disappear
but at best, we can ignore it, and route around it, like the damage it is
death to ip law
Re:ip law come full circle (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the other side of that is whoever has the biggest distribution channel wins. You remove all barriers to distribution of something - no more licensing, royalties, patents, trademarks and copyrights - and now you have the big players out-distributing the small guys.
Think what happens when a song becomes "popular" and there are no barriers to distribution. Sony (or WalMart) just produces a CD. Maybe it is the original vocal talent, maybe not. Who cares? They win, the originator becomes a nobody.
Same thing with books. If WalMart can sell the book for $5 because it is printed in China, why would anyone even be able to find the "original" from the original author? So you think the author just makes a deal with WalMart... except what would be the motivation to give the author anything at all?
There are problems today with IP law, but throwing it away isn't the answer, unless you really love WalMart and Sony.
Re:Patents are genocidial (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because someone calls something a property right, doesn't mean that it is a property right. Do you own slaves? Last I checked, me using an invention, doesn't stop you from using your own copy. If it seems a lot different than regular property, that's because it is.