

Tech "Guru" Riles the Industry   By Seeking Huge Patent Fees - nickb
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122161127802345821.html

======
nickb
If you don't have WSJ subscription, click through this link:
[http://digg.com/tech_news/Tech_Guru_Riles_the_Industry_By_Se...](http://digg.com/tech_news/Tech_Guru_Riles_the_Industry_By_Seeking_Huge_Patent_Fees)

BTW, Myhrvold's the ex-CTO of Microsoft who, as incredible as it sounds,
missed the whole Internet thing. Were it not for Bill Gates, Microsoft would
have been screwed. Imagine that... you're the CTO of the biggest software
company in the World and you miss the rise of Internet. Needless to say, his
tenure was over after that.

Edit: And if you're a fan of Gladwell, you will cringe as you read this:
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell)

~~~
sabat
Admittedly off-topic: I find Gladwell over-rated. He picks interesting
questions to ask, all right, but he never gets around to answering them. Like:
_why_ does the tipping point work? He proposes no hypotheses.

~~~
rams
Raising questions of that calibre is a job in itself. I am glad he is not
coming up with half-baked hypotheses. This whole thing about 'Not asking
questions till you can propose solutions' doesn't cut it for me.

For instance in Blink, he points out that a very successful golf player
doesn't even seem to understand the reasons for his success. This has
important implications. Do successful people really know why they are
successful ? Do we take them a little too seriously ? After all self-
improvement is big business.

------
sfamiliar
this is exactly why patent reform needs to happen now. innovation-stifling
patents make everyone nervous, and cause neverending hassle for tech research
and development. patents were designed to keep someone from copying someone
else's designs, not to get a stranglehold on a wide swath of tech landscape.
as they've gotten more generalized over time, they've also gotten more
abusive.

which presidential candidate is talking patent reform? there's a snippet here
(<http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=17320>), but it only
says the obvious. whoever is serious about it, vote for that guy.

------
noonespecial
Perfect. Another "visionary" who makes paper that prevents people from making
things.

Just when I think its as broken as it can get...

------
vaksel
the patent system is the main reason why the Chinese will eventually overtake
us.

------
jcromartie
He is a tech guru the same way the BTK killer is a relationship expert.

------
zandorg
I once said to a tech legend that patents should _not_ be transferrable,
because the owner has to be the inventor.

He said that was naive, but I still believe it.

~~~
hugh
If the patent couldn't be transferred, wouldn't this mean that only the
inventor, personally, was allowed to make the product?

Invent a new type of fuel pump, and you've gotta spend the next ten years on
the factory floor putting together fuel pumps. Doesn't sound like much of an
incentive.

~~~
sabat
I think you've misunderstood the point of the patent.

 _If the patent couldn't be transferred, wouldn't this mean that only the
inventor, personally, was allowed to make the product?_

In a word, yes: you, the inventor, have the right to build it. You can also
say who else can build it. That was the point of the copyright/patent clause.
Here, read it for yourself:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries.

Nowhere does it say anything about Congress being allowed to make laws that
enable the _purchase_ of said patents or copyrights. That's unconstitutional
-- and if you doubt this, take a gander at the letters that Jefferson and
Madison wrote about the issue _while they were debating it_. Jefferson, for
instance, writes:

 _I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes, but I should have been
for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additons would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their
own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a
term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other
purpose._

Obviously they did not intend for "intellectual property" to develop. If you
can't touch it, you can't own it.

More on the Jefferson/Madison correspondence here:

[http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=1...](http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=1999&post=1999-02-11$2)

------
DabAsteroid
_Millionaire Nathan Myhrvold, renowned in the computer industry as a
Renaissance man, has a less lofty message for tech companies these days: Pay
up.

Over the past few years, the former Microsoft Corp. executive has quietly
amassed a trove of 20,000-plus patents and patent applications related to
everything from lasers to computer chips. He now ranks among the world's
largest patent-holders -- and is using that clout to press tech giants to sign
some of the costliest patent-licensing deals ever negotiated.

In recent months Mr. Myhrvold's firm, Intellectual Ventures, has secured
payments in the range of $200 million to $400 ..._

------
sabat
Yes, this is precisely what the US founding fathers were imagining when they
added the copyright/patent clause. By "artists and inventors", they obviously
were referring to corporations whose sole purpose is to buy patents and then
sue over them. Clearly they wanted patents to be bought and sold as if they
were physical goods. That's why they started the clause with "To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts".

