Comments on: Economist Article on IV http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm ipVA's blog on adding value through intellectual property Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:43:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mike Stoddart http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-11513 Mike Stoddart Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:38:08 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-11513 A blog from a company that builds its business around IPs is highly unlikely to post a negative post about another IP company. I disagree with software patents and I absolutely disagree with companies whose sole business is to buy IPs and profit from them. Patents do nothing but shackle software development and make money for companies rich enough to buy or create patents. A blog from a company that builds its business around IPs is highly unlikely to post a negative post about another IP company. I disagree with software patents and I absolutely disagree with companies whose sole business is to buy IPs and profit from them. Patents do nothing but shackle software development and make money for companies rich enough to buy or create patents.

]]> By: Andrew Watson http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9269 Andrew Watson Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:26:45 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-9269 David. A very good and well balanced comment. I do like the fact that you've actually dealt with IV and can talk from experience. Its easy to over-compliment them or do them down based on an outsiders view. Wonder if we could get anyone from IV on to defend themselves? Where did I put Stephen Potter's business card? David. A very good and well balanced comment. I do like the fact that you’ve actually dealt with IV and can talk from experience. Its easy to over-compliment them or do them down based on an outsiders view. Wonder if we could get anyone from IV on to defend themselves? Where did I put Stephen Potter’s business card?

]]> By: David Jones http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9268 David Jones Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:37:15 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-9268 When considering IV, I think it always pays to remember the "property" part of "intellectual property", because whilst we can argue all day long about the shades of grey between the lone-inventor NPE at one end of the scale and the fangs of the vampiric litigator NPE at the other, and every NPE in between, what all discussions of this type eventually drill down to is the nature of property itself and how it is connected, if indeed it is, to morals, ethics and honour. In simple terms, IV are seeking to fully exploit the rights that have been given to them by the law in tandem with property they have legitimately acquired, just as IBM (but one example from many) do. Once again, we can argue all day long about whether IBM have better "standing" to exploit those rights than IV does, but the fact is that IV have, in great part, merely reproduced IBM's business model; they've just done it in 10 years rather than 100 by virtue of beginning with a fund of billions of dollars, allowing them to grow a corpus of commercially-exploitable IP without going through the various trials and tribulations that IBM have. Now it's fair to say that there is a scent of something faintly and almost indefinably arriviste about this, certainly to those who champion invention, but it does not alone make IV the evil empire. And it does not make them amoral, unethical or dishonourable. It just makes them extremely fast at building a successful licensing business from a standing start. Thus, if IBM have a huge corpus of commercially-exploitable IP accrued 100% by invention and IV have the same thing accrued 100% by acquisition, what difference does that actually make to how they each choose, or should be allowed, to commercially exploit the IP? Would it make a difference if the percentages were not 100%, but were split, invention/acquisition, 99/1 and 1/99, for IBM and IV, respectively? What if it was demonstrably true that IV's current business model showed that its 1/99 would one day become 50/50, or, indeed, 99/1? The question is worth considering, for IV are definitely inventing, they are just doing so quietly, and by standing on the shoulders of their own (now) successful licensing business. I champion invention, but I can also personally attest to the fact that I have seen IV pay inventors and small companies the kind of significant funds that have allowed them to either keep on inventing or keep on trading, or both, and this for IP that the sellers could no longer use or no longer had a use for. So whilst I can see why IV has the reputation it does, in some quarters, they certainly do not deserve to be lumped in with the trolls, sharks and other wild animals of the IP world. When considering IV, I think it always pays to remember the “property” part of “intellectual property”, because whilst we can argue all day long about the shades of grey between the lone-inventor NPE at one end of the scale and the fangs of the vampiric litigator NPE at the other, and every NPE in between, what all discussions of this type eventually drill down to is the nature of property itself and how it is connected, if indeed it is, to morals, ethics and honour. In simple terms, IV are seeking to fully exploit the rights that have been given to them by the law in tandem with property they have legitimately acquired, just as IBM (but one example from many) do. Once again, we can argue all day long about whether IBM have better “standing” to exploit those rights than IV does, but the fact is that IV have, in great part, merely reproduced IBM’s business model; they’ve just done it in 10 years rather than 100 by virtue of beginning with a fund of billions of dollars, allowing them to grow a corpus of commercially-exploitable IP without going through the various trials and tribulations that IBM have. Now it’s fair to say that there is a scent of something faintly and almost indefinably arriviste about this, certainly to those who champion invention, but it does not alone make IV the evil empire. And it does not make them amoral, unethical or dishonourable. It just makes them extremely fast at building a successful licensing business from a standing start.

Thus, if IBM have a huge corpus of commercially-exploitable IP accrued 100% by invention and IV have the same thing accrued 100% by acquisition, what difference does that actually make to how they each choose, or should be allowed, to commercially exploit the IP? Would it make a difference if the percentages were not 100%, but were split, invention/acquisition, 99/1 and 1/99, for IBM and IV, respectively? What if it was demonstrably true that IV’s current business model showed that its 1/99 would one day become 50/50, or, indeed, 99/1? The question is worth considering, for IV are definitely inventing, they are just doing so quietly, and by standing on the shoulders of their own (now) successful licensing business.

I champion invention, but I can also personally attest to the fact that I have seen IV pay inventors and small companies the kind of significant funds that have allowed them to either keep on inventing or keep on trading, or both, and this for IP that the sellers could no longer use or no longer had a use for. So whilst I can see why IV has the reputation it does, in some quarters, they certainly do not deserve to be lumped in with the trolls, sharks and other wild animals of the IP world.

]]> By: Andrew Watson http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9231 Andrew Watson Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:50:10 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-9231 By that definition, IV is part troll and part not a troll is it not? Although it has been buying, IV is also inventing and filing its own IP on its own creations. As I understand it, IV is engaging with some of the Worlds leading creative minds to build a patent portfolio that will cover future solutions to tomorrow's problems. Where is the difference in this scenario of creating its own inventions from a lone inventor or a University? Arguing against myself though, IVs motivation (apparently) with these, ie its own inventions, is to license them out. At a technology or a patent level. I take a more strict definition of a troll. My definition is someone who is prepared to use litigation or the threat of litigation to require third parties to take a license. That makes IV a troll in my book. It also makes a lone inventor a troll, but I'm not so disparaging in my use of the term. Universities rarely sue, or create great IP portfolios either, so I'll exclude them from the definition. There is a very interesting distinction isn't there between IV and a University is there not? IV invents, and patents, specifically with the aim of creating license revenues. Universities create in most cases for the purposes of research but most universities make little or no money from their inventions, mainly as they cannot or do not want to be seen to sue. Would IV be viewed more favourably if it sat alongside Universities and helped them to build and license out their IP portfolios? I wonder? By that definition, IV is part troll and part not a troll is it not? Although it has been buying, IV is also inventing and filing its own IP on its own creations. As I understand it, IV is engaging with some of the Worlds leading creative minds to build a patent portfolio that will cover future solutions to tomorrow’s problems. Where is the difference in this scenario of creating its own inventions from a lone inventor or a University?

Arguing against myself though, IVs motivation (apparently) with these, ie its own inventions, is to license them out. At a technology or a patent level.

I take a more strict definition of a troll. My definition is someone who is prepared to use litigation or the threat of litigation to require third parties to take a license. That makes IV a troll in my book. It also makes a lone inventor a troll, but I’m not so disparaging in my use of the term. Universities rarely sue, or create great IP portfolios either, so I’ll exclude them from the definition.

There is a very interesting distinction isn’t there between IV and a University is there not? IV invents, and patents, specifically with the aim of creating license revenues. Universities create in most cases for the purposes of research but most universities make little or no money from their inventions, mainly as they cannot or do not want to be seen to sue. Would IV be viewed more favourably if it sat alongside Universities and helped them to build and license out their IP portfolios? I wonder?

]]> By: hwertz http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9215 hwertz Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:52:48 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-9215 "One of the problems with using a term like “troll” is that it if you include every non-practicing entity, then you can easily catch people like small inventors who don’t have the resources to commercial develop their inventions and so must engage in licensing. Are they as “bad” as IV? What is it about IV that makes it “worse”? What about universities? They more often than not don’t engage in practicing their inventions. Are they a troll?" To answer your questions point by point... No, small inventors *invented* something, they patent it and if they don't have the manufacturing capacity to produce a product from those patents, they license them out to someone who can. University? They spend big money on research, and when the research bears fruit they can make back some of the money they invested via patent licenses. What about IV makes it worse? They have 0 creativity, they produce nothing, and they advance the state of the art absolutely 0 -- they just buy patents and then figure out how to sue people/make money off those patents. They are a troll, while inventors and universities are not. “One of the problems with using a term like “troll” is that it if you include every non-practicing entity, then you can easily catch people like small inventors who don’t have the resources to commercial develop their inventions and so must engage in licensing. Are they as “bad” as IV? What is it about IV that makes it “worse”? What about universities? They more often than not don’t engage in practicing their inventions. Are they a troll?”

To answer your questions point by point…
No, small inventors *invented* something, they patent it and if they don’t have the manufacturing capacity to produce a product from those patents, they license them out to someone who can. University? They spend big money on research, and when the research bears fruit they can make back some of the money they invested via patent licenses. What about IV makes it worse? They have 0 creativity, they produce nothing, and they advance the state of the art absolutely 0 — they just buy patents and then figure out how to sue people/make money off those patents. They are a troll, while inventors and universities are not.

]]> By: Jonnan http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9110 Jonnan Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:43:18 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-9110 You kinda deserved the comments you got. Because they're only "Working with the rules as written" in the same way a millionaire that used loopholes to receive welfare benefits would be doing so - and frankly, they deserve the same caliber of 'respect'. These aren't people that invented anything. They didn't implement an invention from someone else. They didn't act as a clearinghouse for people to find a tool to fix a problem. They acquire IP from people that can't afford to bring it to market - and they bury deeply in red tape landmines so that anyone else getting *near* the same concept passes close to a bureaucratic landmine. And then they extort money. Not because they had a workable idea, or an implementation, or something useful, but because they gamed the system in such a way that they can bury someone that *is* bringing an idea to market in so much legal pain that it's easier to pay the danegeld than to put everything on hold until you can prove that they actually have no case. And you express admiration for this 'business plan'. Gee, don't know why you've had so many negative comments. Jonnan You kinda deserved the comments you got. Because they’re only “Working with the rules as written” in the same way a millionaire that used loopholes to receive welfare benefits would be doing so – and frankly, they deserve the same caliber of ‘respect’.

These aren’t people that invented anything. They didn’t implement an invention from someone else. They didn’t act as a clearinghouse for people to find a tool to fix a problem.

They acquire IP from people that can’t afford to bring it to market – and they bury deeply in red tape landmines so that anyone else getting *near* the same concept passes close to a bureaucratic landmine.

And then they extort money. Not because they had a workable idea, or an implementation, or something useful, but because they gamed the system in such a way that they can bury someone that *is* bringing an idea to market in so much legal pain that it’s easier to pay the danegeld than to put everything on hold until you can prove that they actually have no case.

And you express admiration for this ‘business plan’.

Gee, don’t know why you’ve had so many negative comments.

Jonnan

]]> By: Christopher http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9107 Christopher Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:30:15 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-9107 Also, the fact that they are the biggest troll out there doesn't change the fact that they are a troll. It doesn't matter how you dress up a troll, it's still a big ugly unproductive brute. Also, the fact that they are the biggest troll out there doesn’t change the fact that they are a troll. It doesn’t matter how you dress up a troll, it’s still a big ugly unproductive brute.

]]> By: Christopher http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9106 Christopher Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:21:32 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-9106 You got linked on Slashdot :-P You got linked on Slashdot :-P

]]> By: Andrew Watson http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9105 Andrew Watson Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:20:05 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-9105 That has been a surprising few hours. It is four years since we first started talking online about IV. Where were you all then? As close to nobody listened then we have gone quiet on the subject until the recent post. I’m on holiday this week so will watch the comments as they come in and then post something more substantive, but thought it was worth posting a short reply. Thanks for all of the comments, even the ones that disagree with my own views on IV. Thanks also to Jordan for his post replying to some of the earlier comments. One or two of the comments suggest that we are associated with IV. To make it clear, we don’t have any association. We have though been trying to draw attention to its business since 2006, after we were first asked in relation to an investor diligence on one of our SME clients whether IV had any patents in our clients’ technical field, and just could not answer the question as no searching of the patent databases would reveal what they had bought. Our main business purpose is to explain IP and IP related issues to those outside of the IP world. We do this for our clients who are all SME’s and their executives and investors, helping them to explain all of their intangibles to the outside world. The post was primarily aimed to do just that. To explain that calling IV a troll is over-simplifying and using the wrong comparable. You cannot compare IV and the sheer scale (and risk) they have taken with a lone inventor or one of the myriad of small trolls that operate in the US. The scale of (and risk taken by) IV is unprecedented. That was my point. I do believe though that they are a troll in that they will use licensing and the threat of litigation to earn revenues. But on a whole different scale from what we have seen of these models previously. And you know I do admire IV in the way that they have taken and rewritten and perfected the IP rulebook. As Jordan says, it is the rules that are broken here. Man has had the habit since time began of bending the rules or using them to his advantage. Quite why anybody out there is surprised by this in the arbitrage world of IP is a little naive. On a personal level I don’t much like it either, but I do admire it. It would help if the debate could be kept on a constructive level. I’m up for a fight with anyone that does not believe that IP and the protections the system gives is not an essential part of creating value in today’s business and social world. That has been a surprising few hours. It is four years since we first started talking online about IV. Where were you all then?
As close to nobody listened then we have gone quiet on the subject until the recent post. I’m on holiday this week so will watch the comments as they come in and then post something more substantive, but thought it was worth posting a short reply.
Thanks for all of the comments, even the ones that disagree with my own views on IV. Thanks also to Jordan for his post replying to some of the earlier comments.
One or two of the comments suggest that we are associated with IV. To make it clear, we don’t have any association. We have though been trying to draw attention to its business since 2006, after we were first asked in relation to an investor diligence on one of our SME clients whether IV had any patents in our clients’ technical field, and just could not answer the question as no searching of the patent databases would reveal what they had bought.
Our main business purpose is to explain IP and IP related issues to those outside of the IP world. We do this for our clients who are all SME’s and their executives and investors, helping them to explain all of their intangibles to the outside world. The post was primarily aimed to do just that. To explain that calling IV a troll is over-simplifying and using the wrong comparable. You cannot compare IV and the sheer scale (and risk) they have taken with a lone inventor or one of the myriad of small trolls that operate in the US. The scale of (and risk taken by) IV is unprecedented. That was my point.
I do believe though that they are a troll in that they will use licensing and the threat of litigation to earn revenues. But on a whole different scale from what we have seen of these models previously.
And you know I do admire IV in the way that they have taken and rewritten and perfected the IP rulebook. As Jordan says, it is the rules that are broken here. Man has had the habit since time began of bending the rules or using them to his advantage. Quite why anybody out there is surprised by this in the arbitrage world of IP is a little naive. On a personal level I don’t much like it either, but I do admire it.
It would help if the debate could be kept on a constructive level. I’m up for a fight with anyone that does not believe that IP and the protections the system gives is not an essential part of creating value in today’s business and social world.

]]> By: Christopher http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9104 Christopher Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:17:35 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=748#comment-9104 Universities are houses of learning that train people to actually contribute useful innovation to society. Universities are houses of learning that train people to actually contribute useful innovation to society.

]]>