What
follows is a guide to the various articles posted since the February 18 NYT article:
- Tech
Crunch:
Mike Masnick
focuses on the revelation that IV has over 1100 shell companies,
noting
“No wonder IV can pretend it doesn’t sue anyone. It can simply hide
behind
its shell companies.”
- Tech
Flash: Todd
Bishop discusses Nathan Myhrvold’s desperate attempt to combat the NYT article and save face in the
court of public opinion.
- Seattle
Weekly: Brian
Miller compares the NYT
article
with Nathan Myhrvold’s long-winded response in Harvard Business Journal.
- Union
Square Ventures: Venture capitalist Brad Burnham
provides a point-by-point
rebuttal of Myhrvold’s justification for his business model.
- The
Faster Times: Fred Wilson endorses Brad Burnhams views
for why Myhrvold’s views
on the patent system are wrong.
- Enterprise
Irregulars: An
anonymous patent infringement attorney, who has been the victim of
NPEs: “IV
has collected over a billion dollars so that it can get more
patents. They make no products. They apparently don’t funnel
ideas to anyone else who makes products. Heck, the only useful
thing
I’ve seen out of IV is that mosquito-killing laser that Mr.
Myhrvold
showed off at TED this year.”
- Against
Monopoly: John
Bennet concludes that “It doesn't sound to me
like Myhrvold has much interest in the poor inventors. Rather, he
just
seems to want their patents so he can make piles of money suing
manufacturers.”
- Boycott
Novell: “Having
had some direct experience with Myhrvold’s group (and hence my
desire to
remain anonymous), I suggest the following. “’Patent troll’ is too
simplistic and limiting. Think of IV as a combination mob
protection
racket + ponzi monetization scheme.”
- The
Economist: This
editorial takes a very skeptical view of Myhrvold’s defense, noting
“Mr.
Myhrvold may find that the suspicions against him of
patent-trollery have
a long half-life.”
- Tech
Dirt: Mike
Masnick again posts on Intellectual Ventures, referencing the Enterprise Irregulars post to back
up his anti-IV stance.
- Dow
Jones: Stuart
Weinberg reveals IV’s recent licensing of patents to firms located
in
Marshall, TX, a haven for patent infringement lawsuits: “If
IV is selling patents to more aggressive third parties, the
strategy has
merit, said Tom Ewing, principal consultant for Avancept, an
intellectual-property consulting firm. For one, IV generates
revenue from
the sales. Second, if IV retains a stake in the patents, it can
generate
additional revenue. Third, and most important, the third parties
can serve
as "surrogates" to pressure potential IV licensees.”
- Law.com:
Zusha
Elinson notes that Verizon has sued TiVo regarding one of IV’s
patents.
- Tech
Flash: Eric
Engleman also discusses the Verizon-TiVo battle.
- Wall
Street Journal: Don Clark goes in-depth regarding IV
decision to start selling
patents to firms willing to file patent infringement lawsuits:
“Merino
says some such sales deals have a ‘back end.’ In other words, his
firm can
receive some revenue generated by the company that buys its
patents,
whether through a lawsuit or some other means. But IV does not
control
what the buyer does with them.”
