Talk:Intellectual Ventures

Good source: Forbes Article (11-14-05)
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1114/166.html

Extract...

Thalveg, it turns out, is a shell company, sister to others with names like Orange Computer, Purple Mountain Server and Maquis Techtrix. They are all controlled by a venture capital firm called Intellectual Ventures, based in Bellevue, Wash.

This brain trust, acting behind its myriad shell companies, has, according to one former executive, spent tens of millions of dollars since 2003 scooping up hundreds of powerful patents. What they intend to do with them is very much in dispute. Myhrvold's firm could represent the high-tech business model of the future, earning rich licensing fees from ideas without putting capital into factories. "In the 21st century we'll see a rise of invention companies," said Myhrvold in a February interview. He declined to comment for this story.

But former colleagues of Myhrvold and patent experts watching moves at Intellectual Ventures say the firm is less an invention company than a protection company. It seems to be set up to help defend its investors against so-called patent trolls, enterprising patent lawyers and small companies that sue but have few or no products for sale. Its patent library would presumably allow it to play an offensive as well as a defensive game. It could threaten or sue any firm that hasn't paid to join the IV gang.

Other articles: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6478691/site/newsweek/ http://news.com.com/Microsoft+alums+amass+thousands+of+patents/2100-1014_3-5929360.html?tag=nefd.lede

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.118.170 (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Of curse that makes no sense. Most patent trolls, like IV, don't actually produce anything. Thus, you can't counter sue them for infringement on your own patent portfolio. 71.134.113.246 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

They don't want to counter-sue - they just want to protect themselves. Your own patent that says a similar thing will work for that 209.6.3.214 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"In October 2009 Intellectual Ventures announced expansion into China, India, Japan, Korea and Singapore to build partnerships..." They did? In Oct 2009. Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.22.222 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro issues
'claiming to invest in "pure invention."' and 'companies that might or might not be infringing on this patents.' are pretty non-neutral. (and grammatically incorrect, one might add).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ALLEGED#Expressions_of_doubt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.169.90 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and introduction
I'll point out that the "This American Life" citation in the introduction applies both to this sentence:

In practice, much of their revenue comes from licensing patents from other corporations and filing lawsuits for infringement of patents.

and this one:

In fact, they have been unable to name a single case of aid they have provided to a single, independent, inventor[2].

I won't be surprised if people would like to revert my edit. But I want to hear a real justification! The "This American Life" piece pretty clearly exposed IV's statements that they support small inventors as false. If you want to take that out you should have another source contradicting it that is not subject to the corporate incentives IV is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.140.133 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The NPR story is surely relevant to the article on Intellectual Ventures, so it is not an urge to revert that I feel. However, common practices is to put controversies into a section by that name; thus, my urge is to move the newly added text.  However, I grow weary for now, and hope that another will be sufficiently motivated to do the right thing.  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. NPOV shouldn't be to the extreme of providing artificial balance where there is none. Putting the primary activity of this company (amassing patents and suing other companies largely with software patents) under "controversy" is artificial. If you want to use very formal language like "non practicing actor" than that makes sense, but you'll probably need "patent troll" somewhere in an explanation. Additional reference: http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/12/09/intellectual-ventures-becomes-patent-troll-public-enemy-1/id=13711/ - http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/12/innovative-invention-company-or-giant-patent-troll/ http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_27/b3991401.htm It isn't controversial outside of the company itself that IV mainly is a "patent troll" only the older article says "maybe" really (when it was suspected to be moving that way). I'm going to revert the tag. Based on this please let me know if anyone still strongly disagrees. Reboot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

Inaccurate Company Name & Relationship Description
I am a connected contributor, as I work for Xinova, a company mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article on Intellectual Ventures. Recently, the article was edited to include inaccurate information about Xinova's relationship with Intellectual Ventures. Because I am a COI contributor, and therefore cannot make edits myself, I would like to request the community apply some corrections to the current Intellectual Ventures entry, as detailed below.

The entry currently states that Xinova is the new company name for Intellectual Ventures. This is not accurate. Xinova is the new company name for the Invention Development Fund (IDF)- formerly one of several funds managed by Intellectual Ventures. However, Xinova spun out of and became independent from Intellectual Ventures in September, 2016. Intellectual Ventures is still a going entity and continues to operate under that company name. Public sources to support this description of events (the renaming and spin-off of Xinova) are included below.

I would like to request that the references to Xinova now included in the article all be reverted back to saying Intellectual Ventures. A mention of Xinova could perhaps be included in the section related to spin-offs (Terrapower, Kymeta, etc).

The public announcement about the Xinova (the former IDF) spin-out from Intellectual Ventures occurred on September 28, 2016:

Niikusuke (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/xinova-launches-to-think-beyond-traditional-rd-and-help-the-worlds-companies-evolve-innovate-and-compete-300335437.html
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/this-company-rents-brains-to-pepsico-and-others-with-thorny-problems
 * https://www.geekwire.com/2016/intellectual-ventures-idf-network-xinova/
 * http://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/xinova
 * ✅ Peaceray (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intellectual Ventures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630210845/http://www.intellectualventures.com/Libraries/General/Investing_in_Invention_Graphical_Representation.sflb.ashx to http://www.intellectualventures.com/Libraries/General/Investing_in_Invention_Graphical_Representation.sflb.ashx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is how it works
A business method for patent trolling, with the following steps: 1) Target a technology that is in development. 2) Poll "experts" on what attributes the expected tech will feature. 3) Compile these as patent claims. 4) Generate a slew of bland schematics. 5) Describe drawings in bland, generic terms without definitions. Get patent. 6) Threaten those who really advance the tech with litigation.

The method above, wherein is added 1) Offer to purchase litigant's IP at low cost. 2) Claim to support inventors.

They want to corner a technology, and then make a big company license it. For example, with Lenovo/EMC (see below). Not surprising Microsoft execs behind it. Microsoft's business model, 20 years ago: purchase competition, mothball, perhaps incorporate it into some platform. Software can have ambiguous IP basis. IV focuses on software but not exclusively. Biotech is different. A generic claim to use mRNA to target virus does not prevent a patent for mRNA technology that solves inherent problems in its application. Courts have an easier time distinguishing non-software IP.

My sources? IV patents, visible at the USPTO website. Check out "Reality Alternate" US 9,183,560 which describes the "expandaverse", that uses "multiple digital realities" "an Alternate Reality Teleportal Machine (ARTPM)," implemented on "devices, architectures, processing, sensors, translation, speech recognition, remote controls, subsidiary devices usage, and virtual Teleportals." No clue as to how this is coded, other than "encoded for transmission". The patentee sells his patents to IV. In IV v. Lenovo, the case was whether IV's patent included securing data on a thumb drive. They lost because their descriptions were just not specific enough. Literally, since "specific device" was deemed to be a particular, but not unique one. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_16-cv-10860/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_16-cv-10860-4.pdf/

Appeciate that this isn't infomation ready for the wiki article. Maybe someone can work with it.