Comments on: Malaria is no excuse for patent trolling, Mr. Myhrvold

By: James Plotkin

James Plotkin — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:58:36 +0000

These folks are despicable. The fact that they’ve put money (other people’s money I might add) into worthwhile research is irrelevant.

I can’t steal bread from a bunch of grocery stores and bakeries only to open my own discount shop to help poor people out…

Again, their nobility in this one area says nothing to counter the claims that they are trolls who innovate nothing and drain the creativity out of others.

By: James Plotkin

James Plotkin — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:54:43 +0000

Haha! well said!

By: JA

JA — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:50:34 +0000

The root cause of the problem is the broken IP system in the US. The broken system makes it more profitable to file patents and then try to extract tolls from companies that are trying to launch services – than it is to launch the services themselves. It is a rich irony that the proponents of the patent system talk about how it promotes innovation – when in practice it is the absolute opposite – the unpredicatability of the system scares companies away from innovating lest they be sued and subject to outrageous penalties – or forced to pay high licensing costs.

A simple cure would be to impose a “commercial prsoecution” test on anyone wanting to sue for IP infringement. If a plaintiff could not demonstrate a bona fide attempt to commercialize a product or service embodying the patented concept then the suit would be thrown out.

This would invalidate the patent troll model overnight – and serve the actual purpose of the patent system – to encourage innovation.

By: Derek Kerton

Derek Kerton — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:46:12 +0000

Nathan…IF (a big IF) you do some good vis-a-vis malaria, then you may well have done more good than GigaOm. Thanks (in advance) for that.

However, what matters is your NET IMPACT. The tremendous drag you put on innovation, the tax on progress, the stifling of entrepreneurs, and the shackles on inventors (who you claim to champion) far outweighs your laser bug zapper.

GigaOm has no such negative karma to absolve. IV is the parasite that we should be zapping with lasers.

By: mikebartnz

mikebartnz — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:19:54 +0000

Well put.
Reminds me of another outfit that is always going on about how much charity they are handing out in Africa but in reality they are only robbing Peter to pay Paul.

By: GerardB

GerardB — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:42:53 +0000

I would much prefer GigaOM to focus on its job (reporting and analysis). Yes, you should have an opinion about the current patent regime and the emergence of “trolls”. But please focus on saying something intelligent about it, rather than getting into polemics and pretend-moral arguments.

It is perfectly legal and often beneficial to amass capital (including intellectual capital) for the purpose of reselling it or collecting rents (royalties) on it, or as a defense against competitors who have their own mountains of capital, be it cash or IP, or machinery, or a brand portfolio.

The financial crash should have taught us about the point where that business becomes socially harmful: When there is a bubble. Thank you for your recent piece on the patent bubble!. More like that please. And a bit more self-criticism about GigaOm’s and its peers’ role on inflating the patent/tech bubble.

Myhrvold is an industry player with his own horse in the race. GigaOM has to rise above that.

-GB

By: Thom Kozik

Thom Kozik — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:12:22 +0000

@Sage: Dig a bit deeper… The companies you named are IV’s *customers*, aren’t Partners of IV anymore than I’m a “Partner” of my local Co-Op. In both cases, we’re buying into the collective with the expectation that we’ll benefit from the way they run their operations. Not cash profit mind you, but *access* to what that organization reaps. Correspondingly, from my read on it, the business relationship between IV and all the companies who’ve signed on with them is more akin to extortion, which they’re trying to wrap in a air of legitimacy.

RE: your point about MSFT profits and the B&MGF, those are not directly Microsoft profits doing the good. Economically speaking, the great work being done by the Foundation is due to the value (and hence cash) WE, the market, put on Microsoft’s stock — which Bill & Melinda then sold to fund the Foundation. There’s no direct route of any profit Microsoft earned on anything that has made its way into the Foundation’s funding; it’s Bill & Melinda’s *personal* fortune (plus the interest paid to them on that fortune) that they received in exchange for selling something of their own… their stock.

By: Thom Kozik

Thom Kozik — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:02:43 +0000

@Sage; One significant difference is the extent to which IV goes to hide their activities. Except for a couple of isolated incidents of shielding the purchase of IP *licenses* (not prosecution), I’m not aware of Apple, Google, etc. doing the same.

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:49:02 +0000

So, the real question is, which parasite do we want to eradicate first?

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 00:55:08 +0000

No you twit. These are two separate things. You can moan about the patent trolling.. but let them do what is generally considered to be “good.” Are you totally demented or do you not have a brain at all.