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."
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: litigation, patent defenders, patents, pools
Companies: intellectual ventures, rpx
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mafia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
something seems fishy
Seems that it would be a better idea to spend the "membership" fees on buying the patents that affect your own industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey is a tool
All this Mikey's whining is a paid up anti-patent commercial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is a tool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual PROPERTY
Now, tell me how we can get companies to invest without Intellictual Property protections. It's not an easy task, you can't force other companies to be "good", without the threat of litigation. Maybe if consumers were smarter they would reward the innovator rather than the duplicator but in the end consumers make buying decisions with their wallets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual PROPERTY
Start selling t-shirts, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTS of T-shitrs to make up for your losses
That's Mike Masnick's answer
Hillarious, isn't it ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intellectual PROPERTY
It's about as funny as your constant repetition of this lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual PROPERTY
I find this attitude incredibly narrow-minded. What you appear to be saying is that, unless you have a completely workable alternative solution figured out, you're not allowed to voice any critcism? Contrary to your comment, it is possible to see and understand the problems in a system without having the solution to fix them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual PROPERTY
You say that as if we don't suggest solutions all the time.
One that provides INCENTIVE to "innovate" rather than DUPLICATE.
It's called the free market and competition. That provides tremendous incentive to innovate in order to differentiate and stay ahead of the competition. It's fantastic. You should look into it.
Now, tell me how we can get companies to invest without Intellictual Property protections. It's not an easy task, you can't force other companies to be "good", without the threat of litigation. Maybe if consumers were smarter they would reward the innovator rather than the duplicator but in the end consumers make buying decisions with their wallets.
All of this assumes, falsely, that innovation is a one-and-done process or that business models can't be constructed that rewards the innovators. This is simply untrue, and any look at historical evidence on innovation shows this is untrue.
If a company can reverse engineer a product, so be it, but the innovator should already be on to the next innovation, and can set up business models that encourage customers to sign on with them rather than the copier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the issue is allowing patents to be TRANSFERRABLE PROPERTY.
Obviously I don't have a solution, but the patent law system is obviously broken at the point where inventors no longer can enforce their patents and are forced to sell to larger companies (often called trolls) who have the muscle to enforce. Maybe in addition to giving inventors more protections to enforce their patents, preventing the purchase and sale of patents in itself is also a solution. I know a solution like that would upset a lot of people, but at least it would protect the integrity of the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what was the name of that group who came up with this idea? was it the MOB? you pay us so no one bothers you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heard this before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100906/08574010912.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/ar ticles/20110125/01044012808/more-patents-that-have-touched-both-intellectual-ventures-ocean-tomo-sho wing-up-lawsuits.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]