The Brilliant Issue

May 2, 2008 3:06 PM

I asked Nathan Myhrvold, C.E.O. of Intellectual Ventures and widely considered to be one of the smartest people in technology, if he is brilliant. "If you put yourself in that camp, you might be correct," he teased. "But then, you're also an asshole." The Brilliant Issue profiles Porfolio's picks for best game-changers, upstarts, rebels, connectors and other influencers.

yes it's mainstream Condé Nast bs but it's also fun!

posted by Non Prosequitur (10 comments total)

Well, this guy's company is a hugely successful patent troll, right? I'm guessing he knows something about being an asshole...
posted by naju at 3:22 PM on May 2

a hugely successful patent troll...

Yep. For those not familiar -- info on Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures.
posted by ericb at 3:45 PM on May 2

More like Intellectual Vultures, AMIRITE?
posted by grouse at 4:10 PM on May 2

The Wikipedia article says Investors gain protection from being sued over these patents. Wow, really? It's like a private equity protection racket!
posted by Nelson at 7:31 AM on May 3

I suspect you also have opinions on Lee Scott, Steven Spielberg, Muhammad Yunus, Bill James, Julian Robertson, Lloyd Blankfein, Zaha Hadid, Max Levchin, Larry Page, Anne Wojcicki, Janelle Procope, Bob Barnett, Sebastian Thrun, Paul Bhuchheit, Rupert Murdoch, Howard Stern, Marc Jacobs, Yue Minjun, Sergey Brin, Linda Avey, Danny Hillis, Chris Bangle, Jay-Z, Karl Lagerfeld, Jacqueline Novogratz, Tina Fey, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, James Thomson, Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Dimon, Jeff Immelt, and Ratan Tata..
posted by Non Prosequitur at 9:21 AM on May 3

Since when has invention and patenting invention been considered trolling?
posted by bz at 12:09 PM on May 3

bz, this particular kind of company is practicing something more like extortion. They're not inventing anything, for the most part; they're buying up patents, then using them as bludgeons against (probably non-infringing) companies, demanding settlement money. The alternative, going to trial, would result in endless legal fees and the possibility of an injunction against your invention, and probably bankruptcy for smaller companies (which patent trolls love to prey on) so settlement is in their best interest. This is an abuse of the patent system, and the Supreme Court's been working on changing patent law to shut out this kind of behavior, but they haven't been too successful yet.

They're called "trolls" because like the monsters under the bridge, they demand payment before you can pass safely.
posted by naju at 12:19 AM on May 5

Naju - I worked with Nathan at Microsoft and before that at Dynamical Systems. I can't say with a certainty that Intellectual Ventures isn't a patent troll but that doesn't sound like the man I knew at all. Nathan is driven by intellectual curiosity, he's already a millionaire a hundred times over. I just can't see him wasting his time extorting companies for money when there's more interesting work to do. I'd be curious if you have specific information to the contrary, but this New Yorker article aligns with my point of view, i.e. he's more interested in generating new ideas and patenting them than acquiring patents, and even more interested in developing inventiveness as a process itself.
posted by zanni at 5:02 AM on May 7

I too, worked with Nathan over the course of several years and, although I haven't talked to him in a very long time, it is my impression that his company is not buying patents but creating them. That is, they are inventors who, from the outset, are equipped to systematically and robustly protect and license their inventions. That other companies have invested and are extended favorable treatment as a result of their investment is par, in my eyes. That serious companies have invested also indicates to me that Myhrvold's ability to create an entity capable of significant invention--invention worthy of being associated with at the inner circle level--is considered quite plausible.

Of course, I could be dead nuts wrong, too.
posted by bz at 9:25 PM on May 7

I think the underlying question is whether creating patents, in and of itself, is a productive activity. There are so many examples of bad patents and abusive enforcement of mediocre patents that it's very hard to look at patent creation itself as productive. Which is too bad because I like the concept of the patent system, it's just the practice in the US is terrible.

I've not worked with Myhrvold but the couple of times I've met him he certainly seemed decent and thoughtful. No doubt his company has long since worked out their answer to the criticism I laid out above. I wonder what it is?
posted by Nelson at 10:39 AM on May 8