
Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures arms HTC with big patent trove - Flemlord
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/11/htc-licenses-vast-portfolio-of.html
======
jaysonelliot
Myhrvold's approach to IP really disturbs me. The intent of patents was to
protect the time and money an individual or company put into invention, not to
stifle innovation by locking away every trivial notion behind a licensing fee.

~~~
tzs
Yes, something needs to be done about allowing trivial things to be patented.

However, for non-trivial things, there's nothing wrong with Myhrvold's
approach. For those things IV itself develops, the patent system is doing just
what it was intended to do--they put money into development, with the intent
of using patent licensing fees to get that investment back and make a profit.
Hence, it encourages the progress of the useful arts.

Same goes for patents they buy. There are many people who are able to invent
something, and do the R&D to show that it will work, but do not have the skill
or resources to set up manufacturing. In this case, what IV provides is a
market that allows people who can invent but can't set up manufacturing to
connect with those who can set up manufacturing but need inventions to
manufacture.

------
Flemlord
What a creepy Godfather-esque move. HTC is buying protection from Myhrvold
because they're getting shaken down by Apple.

~~~
raganwald
I dispute the "shaken down by Apple" suggestion. Apple is a company that
actually spends money on R&D and actually makes its money selling products
based on its R&D. The patent system is fatally flawed, but Apple at least is
playing the game in the exact spirit in which the laws were conceived: To give
companies a temporary monopoly as an incentive to bring new products to
market.

Neither HTC nor Intellectual Ventures are acting in the same spirit.

~~~
ergo98
>but Apple at least is playing the game in the exact spirit in which the laws
were conceived

The patent system was conceived to allow the little guy (or little business)
to invent, and profit from those inventions, even when he lacked the means or
scale of manufacture to reliably profit from that invention.

Without such protection obviously there was no way that someone who invented a
new method to harness energy from gasoline, for instance, could avoid getting
crushed by an established car company: He would have close to zero leverage in
such a transaction, and there was little to prevent them from simply saying
"thanks".

Honestly I suspect that if companies above some threshold were barred from
filing patents, it would have no impact at all on their R&D spend. It might
even improve efficiencies as they stop focusing on trying to land grab with
hundreds of trivial patents (which is sadly what most patents are now, where
offenders accidentally offend simply in the course of building things because
overlap is unavoidable).

There is nothing, whatsoever, morally different between patent trolls and a
company like Apple. They are both playing the same game to enrich themselves
at the cost of everyone else. As the old saying goes, however, don't hate the
players, hate the game, so kudos to Apple for doing what they can to ensure
that $4 billion + of profit enriches their account every quarter.

~~~
ryanhuff
The origins of the US patent system dates back to the 1700's, and so I doubt
that its primary purpose was to protect little guys, rather than providing
general protection to all inventors, regardless of size.

I would appreciate a source if I am wrong.

~~~
anamax
Section 8 of the US Constitution says "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"

