“I really like the fundamentals behind patent law,” says Michelle Macartney, director, IP attorney for Intellectual Ventures (IV). “It’s a fascinating area of law, this fine balance between fostering innovation and not going too far in granting monopolies.”
> “I really like the fundamentals behind patent law,”
I bet she does.
Rent seekers usually win in policy fights, because they usually have the surplus, incentive, and narrow policy focus to put more into maintaining and expanding their rent than the counterparties who suffer. It's a huge drag on the economy and makes almost everyone's lives worse, and a select few's lives very slightly better.
Could be interesting to take out all the ecosystem of open source software even remotely targeted by this attack out of that company, members, related companies, judges and so on that may think this is reasonable, and so on. Give them in particular, and all their related people (up to their children), a sample of a world without those technologies. Bricked phones, very outdated desktop OSs, no social networks, no cloud, and so on. And that for a meaningful time (months or years). Eat your own dogfood, or reaping what they sow.
Even trying this kind of joke should have immediate and heavy consequences. Its more related to crime than to law.
Can someone please explain how the patent covers non-obvious work? This reads to me like tunneling with VPN's, and after we have so many on our hands, that one naturally reaches for sprinkling some conventions and automation on top. We were doing this in the late 90's by hand, and the connections were so expensive we didn't run up enough instances to warrant establishing conventions and writing the code to automate them, but it was obvious that was the direction once bandwidth prices got less insane. Just curious what I'm missing (as they wouldn't have put this suit forward if they didn't feel they had a very good shot at collecting, right?).
A very good shot at collecting is not always related to the merits of the suit. "Collecting" can mean "being paid a smaller amount to go away, because the target doesn't want to risk the chance of losing in court".
When is the government going to realize that software and business process patents are bullshit and that they should be wholesale dismantled.
I suspect the same should be true for mechanical, civil, and chemical engineering. Eg TSMC doesn’t need patent protection, they can just be the very best manufacturer of chips.
What is the omnipresent "defined by a domain name" in the "claims"-section of the patent (see [1]) all about? To me it seems unfit as a defining criterion for a network.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't Nathan Myhrvold the founder of Intellectual Ventures?
I used to drive by one of their offices on 132nd in Bellevue fairly often. Now that I've Googled it, I'm quite surprised to see what Intellectual Ventures engages in quite a lot of patent litigation. I thought he was a venture capitalist or something.
The last thing I remember from him was a series of elaborate cookbooks.
In a just world Nathan Myhrvold will be on his deathbed and a simple device could save his life but it can't be turned on because it violates IVs patent on power buttons.
They are. Just pay couple of hundreds, submit some garbage and you are all set.
The tricky part is how to litigate in order to collect some coins from the legit businesses.
“I really like the fundamentals behind patent law,” says Michelle Macartney, director, IP attorney for Intellectual Ventures (IV). “It’s a fascinating area of law, this fine balance between fostering innovation and not going too far in granting monopolies.”