Intuit Pays $120 Million 'Don't Sue Us' Tax To Intellectual Ventures
from the money-wasted dept
It's no secret that I have tremendous problems with Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures, which many have described as the world's biggest patent "trolling" operation. The company has raised a ton of money and uses it to buy up thousands of patents. While it hasn't sued anyone, Myhrvold has made clear that's always an option. The company has remained incredibly secret, but it has somehow convinced some big companies to pay hundreds of millions to IV. Due to the secrecy, the details aren't clear -- and some of the deals apparently are a mix of "licensing" and an equity investment. But, still, the numbers are stunning. The latest, as pointed out by Stephen Kinsella is that Intuit has apparently paid $120 million to IV. For what? The right not to get sued. Think about that for a second. This is a pure dead weight net loss to society. It's $120 million that Intuit could have put towards further innovating, or to pay off investors via a dividend. Instead, it goes towards nothing productive, in terms of actually creating new products. It will now likely be used to buy up more patents so that IV can get similar black hole money grabs from other companies, as well. It's like a black hole where real innovation goes to die.
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: patents, software
Companies: intellectual ventures, intuit
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's an indefensible position
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since none of the parties have made any public comments elaborating on this matter, I do have to wonder what good is served by speculating as to its purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like that logic. So if police start using torture to get confessions out of supposed criminals and then neither side talks about (police because they don't want to and "criminals" because they are afraid), then we should not discuss that either. Better yet, someone kills you and does not talk about it and since you are not talking about it either (ha!), we should all just move on!
Pinochet would be proud of you. Got an airplane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sucks but...
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you *familiar* with Intuit?
The company's flagship Quickbooks product gets revved every year, with no discernable changes except to data like tax rates.
The last innovating the the company did was probably in 1998, when Quickbooks gained the ability to have accountant's copies and then to incorporate an accountant's edits back into the customer's books. That was cool.
So, yeah, IV is a manifestation of a real problem in IP laws. And I'd like to see that problem fixed. But this $120m isn't money that Intuit would have used to innovate. At best, they would have paid a dividend. More likely, they would have squandered it on yet another dead end product development effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you *familiar* with Intuit?
Be careful not to blame Intuit until you're sure they're not just the messenger here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you *familiar* with Intuit?
Never mind that they are making literally tens of thousands of dollars off of me, they have to screw me for that $199 x4 too.
If there was an open source competitor for QB pro that did ccard swiping internally, I'd tell them to go screw themselves so fast you could heat the sonic boom @ their headquarters, AND happily give those thousands to the open source guys (hint hint!?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are you *familiar* with Intuit?
Add to all of that the cost of support and the fact that every damn time I give them a credit card to purchase the MANDATORY upgrade they "enroll" me into their monthly paid support program (regardless of my telling them not to). I have had to actually call them and threaten a chargeback to make them cancel the unwanted "support plan" for the last 3 years running.
/rant
Sorry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you *familiar* with Intuit?
QuickBooks Online does support FireFox for windows and Safari for Mac since last few months. It does have beta tag for these browsers but the product runs very well except for some layout issues.
-Nirav
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ago old business model...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ago old business model...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dead weight?
The ability to profit on the R&D required to achieve an invention that can be easily copied is something that needs to be protected or else kill that kind of innovation. Come up with a better way of doing that if you don't like the current system.
Say what you want about patents and if the system needs an overhaul, but to call the defending of patents dead weight to society is disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dead weight?
The way you wrote that comment makes it look like the INVENTOR is the one being protected here. Read the article again....IV Buys up patents. It says NOTHING about them inventing anything. It also says nothing about the inventor getting any money from the suit. If they bought the patent then the originator has no rights to it and thus probably gets no money whatsoever.
Hell IV would probably sue the original inventor if he/she created something that used the tech/innovation he/she created in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: dead weight?
It wouldn't make sense for the inventor to get anything from the settlement or suit; they transferred all rights to the patent and those uncertain future cash flows to IV for guaranteed cash a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: dead weight?
The answer is in your own post:
"IV Buys up patents"
That's where the inventor gets the money. When someone buys a patent, they are for all intents and purposes the inventor from that time forward. The original patent holder has a choice to sell or continue controlling themselves, its up to them. And successfully defended patents increase the worth of other patents in the future, creating a market incentive for further innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dead weight?
And what is the rate of return they get out of the invention they do not use versus what the creator of it got? Somehow I suspect IV gets way the hell more than any inventor, by orders of magnitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: dead weight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dead weight?
It creates a market incentive for further patents but not necessarily innovation. It only harms the advancement of innovation. Prove to me that without patents no one would come up with these patented ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dead weight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dead weight?
He doesn't deserve the money, we don't need him to come up with ideas that no one else is allowed to use. "Let me think of an idea that I can prevent others from using so I can make money on anyone who accidentally uses it." Society is better off without him exploiting our broken patent system to make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dead weight?
- Inventor comes up with cool invention and patents it (let's even stipulate a genuinely patentable innovation).
- IV buys patent and puts it in a file drawer
- Engineer at Intuit comes up with same idea a year or two later, with no knowledge of the original invention
Explain to me again how, in that case, Intuit is "riding coat tails" or "just plain stealing"? This isn't an unlikely scenario; this is the bread and butter of IV's business.
It's one thing for IV to buy the rights to useful inventions and to license them as new technology. It's another to buy patents and file them, hoping someone will trip over them in the future. And, heck, I say that as someone who sold a patent to IV (and I'll bet everyone else here would have done the same).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dead weight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dead weight? Answer.
Or
One lawyer depending if he sues the client for breach of contract!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dead weight?
The patent killed the invention. It stopped the advancement of the invention. Most entities do not waste money buying a license to use a patent, they spend tons of resources trying to AVOID infringing on patents. They try to avoid patented ideas that they would naturally come up independently, without patents. That STOPS innovation, it prevents the advancement of good ideas.
Here we have a patent troll that prevents other entities from advancing ideas that they independently come up with because those ideas happen to be patented. The entity itself does not advance the ideas (and the inventor itself can no longer advance it) so the ideas DIE in favor of less efficient, more costly ideas. Society is better off allowing anyone to independently come up with and advance these ideas without patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now its $120 million that IV can pay to the people who actually made the innovations (original patent owners) when buying more patents, which they can then invest into more innovations, as well as encouraging other people to innovate as they see a profitable market for coming up with their own innovations.
As opposed to Intuit keeping the money and patent holders getting nothing which just encourages both the patent holder and others to not spend any time & money on further innovations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IV is seriously increasing the costs of doing business in this case and, it seems, others. If they have yet to sue anyone outright (only threatening so far) then it also cannot be known if their infringement claims are legitimate in any particular case.
When a company pays to avoid being sued, it really is *not* the same as admitting guilt on any legal matter. It just happens that paying this fee might be 'safer' than risking a protracted, expensive legal battle, and potential injunctions on the use of products (or their components).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tripping up?
Its an Intuit's engineer's and legal department's job to keep inventor's notebooks and do patent searches. If an Intuit engineer correctly clean roomed their own innovation then they would have that documented and should fight, if that's not the case the patent search would show them that they need to license or take some other route.
Its Intuit's own fault if they dropped the ball on the patent search that put them in a situation that they felt they needed to pay the patent holder off (hey, in an around about way they essentially did license with them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tripping up?
Today, software and business model patents effectively preclude a company from achieving the same result, even if the approach is different.
For instance, a patent might be on a means of integrating the results from live news feeds into a store's pricing model. If IV is sitting on a patent relating to use of live feeds to adjust algorithms, you're going to trip over it even if you go about the code and differently.
For that reason, many companies no longer do patent searches, because it's better to not know. If a legal department (or, god forbid, an engineer) finds a patent and an effort is made to work around it, there's the potential for treble damages from willful infringement if courts determine the workaround wasn't different enough.
And, of course, the company will patent the workaround, making it more difficult for others to innovate in the same area (you can't do innovative and cool chimneys if the concept of having a roof is patented).
So, yeah, you've got how it *should* work. But that's not how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are innumerable bad patents which have (in)famously been approved by patent offices. Combining this state of affairs with a business model which threatens to litigiously pursue all potential infringement claims seems like it could easily be incredibly bad thing for innovation as a whole.
the practice of "investing" in patents in order to press others for money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice Dept - Hello ?
conspiracy
unfair trade practice
price fixing
are any of the above applicable ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IV buys, begs borrows or steals (with lawyers) a fuzzy patent, like "System for having a cover and keeping out rain"
They then make sure it is fully amended and expanded to the extent that examiners can ignore.
"System for having a cover and keeping out rain"
*On houses
*On cars
*On orphanages
*On decorative hirdhouses, because the word 'house' is used.
They then go around to Orphanage builders, car companies, birdhouse designers and home builders and Casually mention "Oh.. by the way, I have a huge portfolio of patents that could somewhat apply to your product in the right light.. give me money or I might just have to call my lawyers and interfere with your business for the next 5 years"
Some are asked for small fees, and pay up fast and try to move on. These fees are used to buy more lawyers for the next people. Others fight it, burning millions of dollars in the courtroom trying to convince a patent-ignorant judge that 1+1=2. Still others, with looming lawsuits, just close up and abandon Orphanage Construction CO.
The horrible net result is scummy lawyers making money, scummy patent troll companies making money (and using it to buy more patents) and legitimate businesses getting bad promotion and mindless judgments against them ("I rule that 1+1=4, pay IV 5 dollars per unit you build, forever")
This is not to say that everyone who has ever been sued or threatened in an infringement issue is as pure as fallen snow, but we can certainly see that the "defender" in many of these cases is anything but.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've given a name to my pain...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no intellect and no risk - its all wise guy strong arming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike's shitty blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's shitty blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impostors be damned
Need a little kick in the butt ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impostor lemmings be damned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freaking punks everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freaking punks everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]