Nathan Myhrvold and the Business Of Invention 137
elwinc writes "There's a great New Yorker story about Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures company, whose business model is to nurture ideas, write patents, and sell them. Apparently they're filing about 500 patents a year including a passive thorium reactor which consumes waste from conventional reactors. On the lighter side, you can read how Nathan has achieved 'dominant T. rex market share.'"
Though we've discussed Myhrvold and his company in the past, the New Yorker focuses more on how incredible it is to have a group of very intelligent people sitting around a table developing ideas.
Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there's this whole "ideas have value" thing. Their whole business model is based on that tenant. Which is why they're not actually selling these patents to anyone, no-one goes out looking for a great idea to pour money into and create a business from.. investors go looking for *people* who have both a great idea and the technical skills to turn it into a workable business.. you can't just pick up someone else's idea and run with it, no matter how well the patent is written, and there's never written well. So how are they making their money? By litigation. So they're not actually helping progress, they're hindering it.
All in all, its a dot com era idea for a business.. "let's get smart people together and invent stuff" and leave all the pesky marketing and sales to someone else.. but that's what business *is*, so you're basically saying you want to be in the business of not being in business.
Re:Ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
All in all, I agree with the parent, this company is a leech. It sucks value out of the economy while adding none in return.
Not so sure about storytellers (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly, there is a branch of storytelling and artistic creativity which is highly in tune with the scientific method and Socratic thought. Not all, sure, or even necessarily a whole lot, but the two are not exclusive. On the other hand, you are correct in saying that no quality science is conducted in a purely creative sense. "Thought experiments" come the closest, being a form of daydreaming and roleplaying, but they are still more entrenched in rational thought than emotional whim.
intellectual honey pots (Score:3, Insightful)
If they required a working prototype, I'd agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can patent a perpetual motion machine
And I'll hinder REAL innovation and progress.
That's the goal with that company. They aren't improving anything. They're abusing the patent system (with the patent system's willing support) to drain profits from real inventors.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair enough, you're entitled to whatever POV you like. But there's no way to argue logically with you, since your assumptions are so fantastically different from mine.
FWIW, I assume the PTO is run by pretty clever people who do the best they can, given the general difficulty with predicting the future, and who have a pretty decent -- albeit not perfect -- track record over the past 200 years, and who would normally see right thr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Check your immediate surroundings. See any cool devices (iPods, personal computers, Internet) that use technology recently invented in the United States? Call up some of your older friends and family. Any using medical technology (knee replacements, cholesterol-lowering statins, heart-attack preventing stents, implantable pacemakers) that was invented here? Clear evidence, if you're actually paying attention, that there's been no slackening in the pace of innovation and
Patent Office is not run by morons but (Score:5, Insightful)
This allowed a lot of ideas to get lost. Patents were specifically designed to prevent this act. But now in 2000 and the internet this idea is totally useless. There will be always people who can reverse engineer to find out how the thing works. So that particular reason for Patents is patently lost.
Now there is another use of patents to allow people to invest into projects that have a very high risk value. Pharmaceutical companies do have these kinds of projects. I would think there is some use of patents for these sort of companies.
But for the rest of the market Patents are an abomination. They should be abolished. Software industry definitely does not need patents. They already can use copyrights, to control their creations.
One thing that the patent office should do is to require a working prototype. No prototype no patent. And the complete plan should be made open.
Re: (Score:2)
When a big corporation submits a patent application they use highly paid pros to slide it through. It's cost-effective for them, as they do it fairly frequently. If you or I submit a patent app, it's probably on a shoestring and will be something we do rarely. This results in a totally different process.
Big Corporations are patenting ideas at an alarming rate these days. It's analogous to the big real estate scamming which began in the 1980's and has resulted i
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like generic mindless Big Bidness Been Bery Bery Bad Tuh Me sloganeering to me. Try thinking for yourself. Much harder, but more rewarding in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an oldie-but-goodie to refute your operating assumption: Patent 4022227 [uspto.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:intellectual honey pots (Score:4, Insightful)
If the rest of the "science" article has the quality of the abstract, that particular patent application is a classic example of patents that should be denied for lack of useful contribution.
To prevent this, I think patents should only be granted when an implementation is also described, with the possibility of overturning the patent if the implementation does not actually work.
Re: (Score:2)
Implementations have value. For example, I could probably sit down and write a decent enough patent for a perpetual motion machine to where the patent office would accept it. Now obviously no such machine could be implemented.
Actually, the US Patent Office "has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. [wikipedia.org]" The patent system is f****d up, but not that f****d up.
Re: (Score:2)
It adds TONS of value to the economy!
By sitting on patents, and stifling innovation, new competitors are discouraged from entering in practically any market, which preserves existing oligarchies and pricing models, allowing Corporate Citizens to continue to charge monopoly prices for products, increasing Corporate profits! Our economy will just GROW AND GROW!
That's why innovation and invention must be stopped at all costs!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are throwing shit at a wall (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ideas (Score:5, Informative)
evidence to this light is found here: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348 [cosmosmagazine.com]
a company by the name of thorium power, is designing a real thorium based fuel that would run in a conventional Russian atomic reactor, and along comes this patent troll company trying to eat up the US thorium reactor patents... which will mean Russia and China may be using thorium reactors while America finds itself unable to because 'the patent troll drove the cost too high'
Re:Ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
We think that they invented the world's first aircraft (untrue, but let's not go into that now). They thought their big advance was solving the problem of aircraft control (which they had, but in a cumbersome and essentially dead-end way, with wing warping).
Did they advertise this for the benefit of humanity, like Santos-Dumont did? No, they patented it and tried to force all aircraft designers to pay them money. Of course, this only worked in the US, so before long France, Britain, Russia and Germany were designing all kinds of aircraft, while development in the US had ceased.
When WW1 came we had to buy fighters from the French - we had no industry of our own.
I sometimes laugh at the plaudits offered to the Wrights, when the only thing they really did was SUPRESS American development of aircraft for 15 years.....
Re:Ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
It serves America right. Currently we believe we can grant ourselves a monopoly on most ideas, business models, and software, and then use our economic, diplomatic, and military muscle to force the rest of the world to eventually adopt laws enshrining such patents into their legal systems, and thereby hard code a medium-term economic dominance over everyone else.
What we didn't count on was George W. Bush draining our economy, diluting our military strength, and devistating our diplomatic influence using our nation to prosecute a pernsonal and family vendetta against the Hussein family.
As a result, we are no longer in a position to dictate our agenda to the rest of the world (this is in most ways a good thing for everybody, including the US, even if we don't know it), and lo and behold! The rest of the world has chosen not to enact business method and software patents, and isn't too keen on granting patents for vague ideas the so-called "inventors" have no intention of actually building. So if that means the rest of the world ends up with cheap, clean power, and the US economy flounders or even impldoes, well, our own greed and lust for dominance brought it upon ourselves, and we deserve it.
And maybe, just maybe, our falling behind every other developed nation in just about every field will be the catalyst we need for real patent and copyright reform. I'm not betting on it--we seem to have developed a talent for burying our heads in the sand--but there is an outside hope such change might eventually happen, someday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To the mod who did that: why don't you go and kill yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Completely Viable Business (Score:2)
Are they patent trolls? Maybe. But ideas do have value, as long as patents have value. Litigation can only happen if patents are being violated, and that is why IP management is so important. The s
Ideas have value, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideas have value, but what they don't have is natural ownership. By unnaturally imposing ownership on them through patents, the value they have for the community of producers is reduced, while the value they have for legal leeches who produce nothing is increased. And that's a disastrous tradeoff for community.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I hate patent trolls as much as everyone else, at least these guys are "inventing" are they not? Even in the worst case senario where they hog all their inventions, once the patent expires they're public domain. They also claim otherwise:
Our current focus is on developing our invention portfolio. Over time, we intend to market our portfolio on a broad and non-exclusive basis through a variety of channels including spin-out companies.
patent troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:patent troll (Score:5, Funny)
Alternate patent troll business model (Score:2)
2 - Post story on
3 - Charge people for reading [science-direct.com]
4 - Profit!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA didn't mention them buying patents. They have a bunch of absurdly clever, motivated people from different disciplines who get together and invent (conceptually) things. Those ideas are passed on to a bunch of merely extremely clever people who do the detail work and, if in the end they come up with something workable, they patent it and license the patents. That's a somewhat different process to merely buying and licensing patents. It's inventing without aiming to be the end producer, which is exactly
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slave masters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't change the fact that it sucks.
Misuse of the system (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, but the system in place is one that a lot of people feel is necessary to some extent. For the basement developer who comes up with an idea and makes a prototype working weekends in his home workshop, getting a patent for something useful is the end result of years of hard work. But getting a patent for 4 hours of sitting around brainstorming, and coming up with an idea that may not even be
Re: (Score:2)
That's what we need... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That's what we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pimps are the epitome of coolness.
I was like you once. Young, idealistic.
Now, how do I get these dead fish out of my shoes?
"passive thorium reactor" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: "passive thorium reactor" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
there could have been a big comet, etc, but then, where is the crater, they don't just go away you know.
You're right, they don't...
Overview - [1 [redorbit.com]] [2 [gwaihir.org]]
Chicxulub - [1 [nasa.gov]] [2 [wikipedia.org]]
Shiva - [1 [wikipedia.org]] [2 [spacedaily.com]]
Boltysh - [1 [wikipedia.org]] [2 [open.ac.uk]]
And probably more, such as the Silverpit crater [wikipedia.org], although that's a bit more debated.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No patents:
1. Come up with good idea
2. Talk to investors about idea
3. Investors run with it themselves
4. No profit
Patents:
1. Come up with good idea
2. Patent idea
3. Talk to investors about idea
4. Make the product with investors
5. Profit
Least, that was the idea with the big engineering patents at least. With the "soft" patents that are basicly done the moment yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of a patent is so that you can keep your competitors from adopting your newest innovation, thus giving you an advantage in the market place for a limited time in return for disclosing how your invention works.
Originally patents were a means for attracting skilled immigrants to come set up shop.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if another company named 'thorium power' had been developing a way to make thorium/uranium/plutonium rods... the plutonium to activate the thorium the thorium to create energy and activate the uranium, which creates energy and keeps the thorium going..
and they didn't patent every single idea that was possibl
Perspiration (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for "promoting science and the useful arts..." - ergo, IMHO, unconstitutional.
Right, and here's how to fix it... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you show up with your idea that you think deserves protection, the patent examiner's first duty is to look at what evidence you provide that this idea has been economically feasible for 20 years, and no one has done it yet.
If it has been feasible for 20 years, then there is a market that could support it, and there are big players in that market, and the
Re: (Score:2)
Another hard problem to solve is that often the value of a patented invention is that somebody finally thought to ask the right question. If you ask the question, the answer isn't all
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I like that general idea, but it just wouldn't work:
- Patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures could simply start tons of shell companies. If the cost of creating one of these was, say, $1k, they'd get themselves some 167 "independent subdivisions", getting the price down to $800 per patent.
- Some giant companies may actually come up with lots and lots of ideas. The l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the R&D dept would be working on real innovation. In new technology, it's a free-for-all--if you can keep it secret (Coca Cola formula), fine, if not, weigh the risk of someone c
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know how much perspiration they (the company) put in? Have you read the patents? As it happens, they do actually perform R&D, though how close they come to finished products I don't know.
I thought you couldn't patent an idea... (Score:3, Informative)
Patentable Subject Matter. Assuming the criteria described in the next section are also satisfied, any new and useful process, machine, manufac- ture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement of these things, can be patented. These cate- gories are quite broad, but the courts have identified certain types of subject matter that cannot be patented, including laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.
(from Can You Patent That?" [ftc.gov])
It's a semantic game ... (Score:2, Informative)
I have seen it before (Score:2)
MICHAEL (CONT'D)
This month is going to be bigger. It's
actually going to be the biggest month
we've ever had. We've got a new issue
I want to talk to you about. It's
called Med Patent. They've just
designed the world's first retractable
syringe. This means that doctors and
nurses will never again have to worry
about infection from dirty needles.
This is not going to be an alternative
in the medical world, it's going to be
the standard. We all know we're here
to make money, but if we can do
something good like this, then all the
better. So I want you all to go out
and buy yourselves a new car, or a
house. Whatever you want. Go into
debt. You will make a million inside
of six months.
-- from Boiler Room movie script.
Perpetual Monopoly Machine (Score:2)
Great idea, but Myhrvold didn't invent it. Luckily, he can't patent it, either.
New Yorker is a pathetic tribal mouthpiece (Score:2)
but they aren't intelligent (Score:1)
You're an optimist ... (Score:2, Insightful)
What a great idea... (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, maybe the place where they THINK could be called a TANK. I can't believe no one's thought of this before!
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Our society should have precious little tolerance for people who only come up with ideas on paper, without being able to put them into practice.
I disagree. If somebody is good at thinking of innovative ideas, power to them. I fully support the right of these people to establish themselves within an industry where their ideas are suitably marketable so that they can earn a living.
What I disagree with is the fact that these bastards seem like they are being greedy about it. There is no need to pretend they are making positive contributions to the world when their goal is to milk the business community for their hard earned cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed... Everyone seems to have their own ideas on patent reform, and while I'm more in favour of some of the "bigger" measures, a simple "little" measure that would probably help would be to say that if you have no business plan to actually use your patent, and someone else does, then they have a defacto right to purchase the patent from you.
It would stop this kind of patent troll that patents ideas and then nickle-and-dimes others out of their cash. The "idea companies" (as this one claims to be) could
Re: (Score:2)
The five year period would give startups ample time to capitalize on the idea and gather enough cash to assign some value to their patent and pay the taxes for the next few years.
Licensing probably would have to be thought over as patent ownership would be fluctuating a lot, but given a well thought out system, a lot of the new patent tax could
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Elisha Gray and the telephone (Score:2, Interesting)
At least one researcher has come up with a more prosaic explanation [amazon.com] for the coincidental telephone patent filings - he believes that Bell bribed a patent office employee to show him Gray's filing, after which Bell returned to his lab, completely revised his approach, and soon re-filed with a description of his triumphant "inven
Good not evil? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, I see, these are good patents not evil patents. Yes...
I hate these patent farms (Score:5, Informative)
Well guess what? One guy ownes ALL rights to the most common sense approaches, yet refuses to bring his product to market. Prior to my investigation, all my 'original' ideas have already been thought of , registered, and accepted. The only way I could move forward would be to pay someone who didn't do anything to help my work some money for every sale. That is, if he'd even respond to inquiries.
It gave me an edge for the future. If the system is going to be bound by such things, I am going to register every stupid thing I come across that hasn't been registered yet. If I can't invent without being stifled, why should anyone else?
Re:I hate these patent farms (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It gave me an edge for the future. If the system is going to be bound by such things, I am going to register every stupid thing I come across that hasn't been registered yet. If I can't invent without being stifled, why should anyone else?
Fortunately (for Russia & China), unfortunately for the West, such a future won't come about. It's a bad idea to base your entire economy on something which is easily copied by people who don't care about the artificial constraints you put on yourself, and at the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, if you won't and instead do what you said you would, you're no better than the loathesome trolls and in that case, what do you contribute to society?
Sadly, not many are willing to put in the effort required to do great things, so it becomes even harder for those few who try.
Re: (Score:2)
What had happened was, during the war at Los Alamos, there was a very nice fella in charge of the patent office for the government, named Captain Smith. Smith sent around a notice to everybody that said something like, "We in the patent office would like to patent every idea you have for the United States government, for which you are working now. Any idea you have on nuclear energy or its application that you may think everybody knows about, everybody doesn't know about: Just come to my office and tell me the idea." I see Smith at lunch, and as we're walking back to the technical area, I say to him, "That note you sent around: That's kind of crazy to have us come in and tell you every idea." We discussed it back and forth -- by this time we're in his office -- and I say, "There are so many ideas about nuclear energy that are so perfectly obvious, that I'd be here all day telling you stuff." "LIKE WHAT?" "Nothin' to it!" I say. "Example: nuclear reactor... under water... water goes in... steam goes out the other side... Pshshshsht -- it's a submarine. Or: nuclear reactor... air comes rushing in the front... heated up by nuclear reaction... out the back it goes... Boom! Through the air -- it's an airplane. Or: nuclear reactor... you have hydrogen go through the thing... Zoom! -- it's a rocket. Or: nuclear reactor... only instead of using ordinary uranium, you use enriched uranium, with beryllium oxide at high temperature to make it more efficient... It's an electrical power plant. There's a million ideas!" I said, as I went out the door. Nothing happened. About three months later, Smith calls me in the office and says, "Feynman, the submarine has already been taken. But the other three are yours." So when the guys at the airplane company in California are planning their laboratory, and try to find out who's an expert in rocket-propelled whatnots, there's nothing to it: They look at who's got the patent on it!
Any smart person could sit around a brainstorm up a hundred obvious things that were patentable in a day, and then when someone else actually wanted to do it, they were held up by the existing patent. It was all the same back then. Except now, the patent office lets you patent ev
Nathan Myhrvold (Score:1)
Gesundheit
Phooey (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can sit around a table "developing ideas" - the hard part is making them into reality.
Your reality and theirs is different. Reality for these guys is something profitable, which given their chosen business model, means something patentable. But it doesn't have to be practical, doable, or reasonable, or any of the other considerations us less motivated folks would consider necessary in our reality. Think about it - their competitors are fools like you and me, so of course they will win with that approach!
And a couple of other points to consider:
1) It's easier to make money by NOT being orig
I'd rather listen to... (Score:2)
They are parasites (Score:5, Insightful)
But it looks like plenty of people have already made that point. Excellent!
These people should not be glamorized, they should be roundly criticized for being lowlife parasites.
THAT Nathan Myhrvold... (Score:4, Interesting)
Reminds me of something I wrote a few years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line, patents are anti free-market, they are not property, they are not incentive, they are not protection. Rather brought to their logical conclusion they are genocidal.
techdirt (Score:2)
There's an rather insightful comment by Mike Masnick at techdirt.com [techdirt.com] about this New Yorker story.
As he notes, the story first tries to show that many important ideas are invented simultaneously by multiple parties ... but then completely fails to ask the obvious question: If such ideas' "time has come", so to speak, why are we granting a legal monopoly to someone who has no intention of developing them?
decadent science (Score:3, Insightful)
caustic (Score:1)
there's another thing, somew
We need open source ideas! (Score:1)
There should be a website where people can make known to the world their ideas. At least might that act as some prior art and save an idea or two from the patent trolls?
what a joke (Score:2)
His patent troll company is likely to do the same thing: reinvent a lot of stuff that people already know, and get a bunch of patents that nobody who actually
my irony chip just blew .. (Score:2)
No, that should be buy up old, out of date and defunct patents, reregister them, wait for a real company to make something (like Blackberry) and then extort revenue from them under threat of litigation.
"the New Yorker focuses more on how incredible it is to have a group of very intelligent people sitting around a table developing ideas"
Are you s******g me, I'm sorry but since when did SlashDot bec
Re:Well maybe next time you'll think twice... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please don't use the word "Muslims" like that... it's tarring all people of one belief with the same brush.
It's probably equally as accurate to say that most Christians who die violently do so at the hands of other Christians. (although I have no cite for this, just as you have no cite for your Troll)
(disclaimer: I'm not a Muslim or a Christian - in fact, I'm a staunch atheist that thinks both the Muslim and Christian faiths are COMPLETELY ridiculous. I just don't like it when people fuel hatred in this manner)
Re: (Score:2)