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?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: nathan myhrvold, patent hoarding, patents
Companies: intellectual ventures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual Ventures is not 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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
technonsense
"with a big target on sucking up patents from universities throughout Asia."
WTF are you talking about ?
I've never seen a single US patent from any of the universities in Asia, at least in high-tech.
There are lots of junk patent filings of course from the likes of Samsung and Toshiba, but not from universities
Do you really have a f****** clue about the subject ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: technonsense
Perhaps you ought to, I don't know, read the WSJ article for yourself. It's not like I made that point up. It came from the article.
However, knowing your past of making stuff up around here and making blatantly false accusations about me and others, why should it come as a surprise that you would once again attack me without actually understanding the facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet Another
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name Says It All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
donesen
220291252957
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lock Up Patents. Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]