
Apple declines to join Microsoft in funding patent troll Intellectual Ventures - dashausbass
http://gigaom.com/2014/04/11/apple-declines-to-join-microsoft-in-funding-patent-troll-intellectual-ventures/
======
chasing
When you talk about IV, use the name Nathan Myhrvold. Hell, they have a
picture of him right there.

One of the best measures we have against Mr. Myhrvold -- given that he seems
interested in portraying himself as a public genius of some sort -- is to drag
his name through the mud over this. He's not the guy who studied with Stephen
Hawking. He's not the guy who wrote the molecular gastronomy tome. He's the
very, very rich guy who wants to drag down the entire tech industry to get
even richer.

~~~
primitivesuave
Are you sure we're talking about the same Nathan Myhrvold? Because the Nathan
Myhrvold that I know _is often referred to as a visionary technology and
business leader._
([http://www.nathanmyhrvold.com/](http://www.nathanmyhrvold.com/))

Certainly not the Nathan Myhrvold who is _a professional jack-of-all-trades.
After leaving Microsoft in 1999, he 's been a world barbecue champion, a
wildlife photographer, a chef, a contributor to SETI, and a volcano explorer._
([http://www.ted.com/speakers/nathan_myhrvold](http://www.ted.com/speakers/nathan_myhrvold))

You can't possibly be talking about the Nathan Myhrvold who proposed that we
pump sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere from helium balloons to solve global
warming, despite experts saying that it would reverse all the work we've done
in the last 30 years to get sulfur dioxide _out_ of the atmosphere.
([http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/20/fzgps.01.html](http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/20/fzgps.01.html))

Although Google would make an industry outsider think differently, it's pretty
much common knowledge within the tech industry that the guy is a complete
piece of shit.

~~~
eogas
Just to clarify, what you're saying is that _Nathan Myhrvold is a complete
piece of shit_?

EDIT: Oh wait I forgot, HN isn't crawled.

~~~
BrandonM
HN is crawled, the links are just nofollow.

------
rajbala
From an interview of Nathan Myhrvold on Fareed Zakaria:

Zakaria: How worried are you that the United States is no longer going to be
the place that invents the future?

Myhrvold: I'm very worried. Current course and speed --- we're very good at
inventing, uh, but we're also undermining our ability to do that in lots of
ways.

<facepalm>

~~~
moonchrome
Exploit the flaws in the system until people are forced to make changes - and
get rich while doing it - the unsung hero.

~~~
midas007
And also be sure to get rich (Big-4 style) by offering to "fix" the system you
helped break. Rinse, later, repeat.

------
amaks
Why new, open, honest Microsoft is still doing it? Or, judging by this action,
may be it's still the same, large company, and openness is just a facade?

~~~
ramchip
Large companies are made of many people who sometimes have different goals and
ideals.

~~~
tluyben2
That's an excuse?

~~~
ramchip
I think so, yes. It's hard to turn around such a huge ship.

------
LukeWalsh
I'm hoping this has to do with a change in policy in regards to these types of
issues, but I'm skeptical. It could just be an anomaly.

We need a major tech company like Apple to take a stand against these types of
lawsuits before we will see any real policy change.

~~~
harrygold
Don't count on Apple to take a stand. Apple is no better. They along with
Microsoft and Sony funded billions into Rockstar Consortium, inc which stifles
innovation through the patent warchest.

[https://twitter.com/paulg/status/396141269035925504](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/396141269035925504)

~~~
astrodust
Citation needed on Apple beating up on smaller companies by using patents.

If anything Apple's stood in the way of patent trolls and threatened to inject
themselves in any lawsuit filed for the Lodsys patent, making it much harder
for Lodsys to win or back out.

They've been engaged in a patent war with Samsung, Google, et. al, but this is
a whole different game. I'm not saying I approve of this, but they haven't
been picking on little companies.

Microsoft, by contrast, is making hundreds of millions in license fees for
questionable patents impacting Android devices.

~~~
lostlogin
I'm not disputing, as I know nothing about this, but isn't the Apple V Samsung
thing very similar to Microsoft V Android? Big companies throwing their weight
around? Or is Microsoft hitting small guys?

~~~
astrodust
Microsoft is hitting up a lot of Android vendors for licensing fees. They're
not even trying to protect any particular intellectual property. They're just
shaking down people for money.

It's Intellectual Ventures that was co-founded by two former senior Microsoft
employees that's the worst offender by far.

Those companies that invested in IV probably did it for strategic reasons
since barring that they'd probably end up targets.

------
jgamman
not even sure if it's off topic but ex-IV senior manager Chris Somogyi is now
a GM at NZ's newly created R&D/innovation/commercialisation agency:
[http://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/about-us/key-
people/e...](http://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/about-us/key-
people/executive-leadership-team)

I have no idea what he's up or why he was head-hunted to lil ol' NZ but an ex-
IV guy in a major role in a central funding hub of an entire country's R&D
system kind of weirds me out. My conspiracy tendencies are high normally, this
takes it to 11. Any comments from a community that might have
worked/interacted with him?

------
tzs
How come it is news that Apple invested in an IV fund in the past, but is not
investing in this new IV fund, but it is not news that Google invested in an
IV fund in the past, but is not investing (as far as we know) in this new IV
fund? Or Yahoo? Or Nvidia?

~~~
gress
Because mindlessly associating Apple with almost anything gets clicks, and
that's the purpose of news sites.

------
higherpurpose
Well, that's a first. But good on them, I guess. Now if only they did the same
with Rockstar.

~~~
leoc
In the meantime: paging the new, open, friendly Microsoft! Paging nice Mr.
Nadella! Ring, ring, ring.

------
jgable
Can someone explain the motivations of the major players here? The posted
article references another Reuters article that goes into a little more
detail: "Several large tech companies previously invested in IV, which gave
them low-cost licenses to IV's vast patent portfolios as well as a portion of
royalties IV collected." However, investments like this seem pretty short-
sighted, and I would have thought that all players in the tech space would
have woken up to the dangers of patent trolls years ago. What explains the
continued behavior of Microsoft? Is this just another version of paying off
the trolls to make them leave you alone?

~~~
roc
> _" Is this just another version of paying off the trolls to make them leave
> you alone?"_

That's absolutely what this is. Instead of being on the receiving end of a
thousand lawsuits, you 'invest' in IV, which gives you a license to any and
all of the patents they have and will acquire for some term after your
investment.

It's a further optimization of the 'pay them to go away' method of dealing
with patent trolls, as you're not paying each shell company for each patent,
you just pay the parent company once.

~~~
jgable
I understand small companies caving to the demands of patent trolls, because
fighting is more costly than they can afford. I like to think I'd have the
courage to act differently, but I understand the rationale. But a behemoth
like Microsoft or Sony? Why pay up? You hear the mantra all the time: "We do
not negotiate with terrorists."

It seems obvious it's worse for them in the long run, and they can afford to
play the long game. Maybe I'm being naive about the costs at stake here.

~~~
kenjackson
Terrorists can't get money by going to court. Trolls can. It is better to play
a small price and stay out of court altogether.

~~~
lostlogin
Slightly off topic, but this instantly came to mind - it caused considerable
outrage at the time.
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Maguire](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Maguire)

------
yp_maplist
I always thought there was a humorous irony in Mr. Myhrvold's half-baked
efforts to eradicate malaria.

That's because IV itself is a parasite.

------
mercurial
That's the sort of thing that I keep mind whenever I see Microsoft moving in
the right direction (eg, by opening their C# compiler). I can't help but liken
it to the mob giving some of its extortion money to charity in a bid to show
that they're good people.

------
Karunamon
Is it admirable when someone does the right thing for the wrong reason?

~~~
revscat
Usually, yes. What is the wrong reason you are speaking of? None was given in
the article itself.

~~~
i_s
The article mentions that

> While Apple invested in earlier IV funds, its reluctance to do so again may
> stem from the fact that it is being swamped by trolls itself

It is the wrong reason if you accept that patent trolling is wrong. Analogy:
murder is wrong, so if someone only stops murdering people because their own
family members were murdered, it would be the wrong reason.

~~~
mitchty
Maybe its the best we can expect of a corporation.

It is also a bit of a guess to be honest, maybe they aren't getting a good
return on investment or who knows maybe they just don't feel like investing in
them any longer.

~~~
mildtrepidation
_Maybe its the best we can expect of a corporation._

Corporations don't make decisions; they don't do anything at all. The people
who control them do. "A corporation" isn't even a single abstraction; there
are so many different kinds and even the same kind can be set up and run so
many different ways that having any expectation (or lack thereof) of "a
corporation" is meaningless.

A good result from bad intentions isn't admirable. A war economy can create
jobs, among other things, but that result doesn't make going to war an
admirable decision.

~~~
Karunamon
_Corporations don 't make decisions; they don't do anything at all._

Nitpick - corporate leadership is responsible for the actions of those they
lead.

Everyone knows what we're talking about when someone says "Microsoft did this"
or "Y Combinator did that". It's a convenient shorthand that omits no useful
information.

Nobody cares about the difference between an LLC and an S Corp and a Nonprofit
when discussing corporate behavior (or lack thereof!) - their collective
actions can and should still be critically evaluated through the same rubric.

------
Bahamut
This is misleading - Apple previously invested in IV.

~~~
simonh
> ...unlike on past occasions, Apple is not coming along for the ride.

What's misleading about that? Did you read the article?

~~~
Bahamut
I did. The title of the article is what is misleading, as if Apple chose to
not fund IV for the first time.

~~~
LeoNatan25
Admit it, you read just the title. ;-)

April 1 no more:
[https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/10202059501509428?stream_...](https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/10202059501509428?stream_ref=10)

~~~
Bahamut
I almost never comment on articles unless I've read it completely (although a
few days ago I rightfully got downvoted for incorrect comments, partly due to
not reading the link) - I'm against hasty judgment in general.

That said, my point still stands. The title does not accurately reflect the
content of the article. A more accurate title would be "Apple declines to
increase their funding for patent troll Intellectual Ventures"

Edited for more informative title

~~~
veemjeem
That title would still be inaccurate because it would imply that Apple is
currently funding IV, and will not increase their funding. Just because Apple
gave them money in the past doesn't mean they are continuing to fund them
either.

It just seems to me that you have difficulty accepting other commenter's
criticisms and would rather just believe that you've been right all along. Why
is it that many hackers have this superiority complex that causes them act
like this? I see this type of scenario in our industry all the time. Hackers
would rather see themselves as correct from a different angle rather than
accepting fault seen from everyone else's perspective.

~~~
Bahamut
The article says nothing about the funding stopping completely, just funding a
new round, hence my edit which originally said stop funding, which is
incorrect.

I'm not sure what is difficult to understand here about the main point that
the title is inaccurate - there wasn't even an attempt to refute the
explanation.

------
yuhong
Another one to put on my wishlist for Satya.

------
collyw
I thought Apple were king of the patent trolls these days.

~~~
rimantas
Attitudes like that involve neither thinking nor research.

~~~
collyw
They don't need to when you hear about Apple suing for rounded corners and
other frivolous nonsense on the news.

------
will_brown
>in February, [Apple] complained that it has had to go to court with trolls 92
times in the last three years.

Yet Apple holds a $1Billion+ judgment on Samsung for violation of Apple's
design patent for rectangular device with rounded corners in addition to
"pinch and zoom" and "bounce back".

~~~
roc
Patent Trolling was defined due to the 'trolls' being "non-practicing
entities" \-- a fact which obviates cross-licensing, counter-suit and
basically any strategy other than the simple math of "license cost" (to
comply) vs "legal cost" (to fight).

Trying to conflate a suit between Apple and Samsung with Patent Trolling is to
rob the term of all meaning and essentially lump every action under "patents
are bad".

Which is certainly as valid an opinion as any.

But such an opinion doesn't make any distinction between practicing entities
and trolls, and as such it makes no sense to voice that opinion using a word
that exists solely to make such a distinction.

~~~
will_brown
>Patent Trolling was defined due to the 'trolls' being "non-practicing
entities"

Though likely this is the commonly accepted definition, for all practical
purposes this very naive definition. Perhaps not the case with Apple and the
rectangular design, for purpose of legal protection, most patents are placed
into entities that do nothing other than hold and license patents. (e.g.
company A files patent 1, then assigns patent 1 to company A1 which in turn
licenses it to company A the original inventor). This is elementary protection
of intellectual property and legitimate; however, under your definition this
makes company A1 a patent troll because the entity is non-practicing and only
licenses and protects its patent.

According to the article Apple previously invested in IV patent funds, and
those patent funds are non-practicing entities.

Conflating a specific lawsuit does not lump every action as "patents are bad"
as I used a specific example based on the merits. And yes I admit it does not
fall under your definition of troll, but I will continue to say a company is a
troll who files, buys and enforces patents which are essential, obvious, and a
copy of prior art already in the stream of commerce.

~~~
roc
> _" Though likely this is the commonly accepted definition, for all practical
> purposes this very naive definition. "_

No, it's not. It's the _actual_ definition that exists to draw a distinction
between the unique situation posed by non-practicing entities and the added
extortionate situation NPEs present, completely divorced from any concern as
to whether their patents are particularly good, bad or whatever else.

If you want to say Apple has funded patent trolling, that's perfectly fine,
because it's true. But that doesn't mean Apple's lawsuits against Samsung --
nor Samsung's against Apple -- are patent trolling.

> _" Conflating a specific lawsuit does not lump every action as "patents are
> bad" as I used a specific example based on the merits."_

You can certainly make a point about given actions being more or less
conscionable on the merits. But even unconscionable actions simply are not
trolling if they're undertaken by practicing entities.

If Apple were to fund IV and an IV subsidiary sues you, that's trolling,
arguably by Apple, because you can't sue, threaten, cross-license, etc with
Apple directly to make it go away.

If Apple were to sue you directly _with the same hypothetical patent_ , that
is not "trolling" because you can bring the typical array of legal strategies
to the table.

