How does that matter? Maybe the issue the commenter is raising is not personal. Maybe it has nothing to do with personalities or generosity. Maybe he is raising the issue of IV's business model: further exploiting a broken system.
Some might opine that such exploitation is not a good thing, and we should not condone it let alone support it.
We can all make solid returns from patent trolling with very little risk. Seriously. The money is great. The USPTO is not going to fix the problems any time soon.
Does that mean we should all be working on patent troll "businesses"? Should we be doing all our business through shell corporations with PO Boxes in Eastern Texas? What if I could guarantee you a reasonable return? Would you invest in my patent trolling business? Why did Myrvold have to use his own money to start IV? Did he not want to take outside investment? Or maybe there was some other reason?
I'm not sure what you think he and Detmer are trying to do with IV. I think they're trying to make money as a tax collector on innovation. More power to them. The system allows this. It's all legal.
However, I can't quite see how the taxes innovators must pay to IV are adding any value. At best, they are paying for protection (nevermind why they should need such protection in the first place).
As for whether knowing him matters, the question is not whether you know him personally, but whether you actually understand what he does or is trying to do. Honestly I think most people who pay judgement do not, but it is too painful to see otherwise sane members of the HN community scapegoating someone without knowledge.
TerraPower is one of the most courageous and exciting approaches in technology today. It is absurd to think it is being done for PR purposes.
---
See my reply to Staunch as how I see it. One response to your phrase:
"Tax collector on innovation."
I think the concept at issue here is whether or not invention -- the creation of an idea and how to actual execute it -- is worth anything versus innovation -- brining a new concept to market.
Having been involved in both, it does seem invention is massively short changed versus innovation.
I disagree somewhat with the methods.
But the complete view of it would be that IV is trying to collect taxes from rulers, innovators, and all out copiers, and pay the inventors.
---
They actually do pay inventors.
Possibly too much. Word on the street is that they are not profitable. Or possibly the overhead is too high. Or perhaps they are simply not as aggressive as people might imagine.
First, the idea that IV is a scapegoat is an amusing one. IV is the world leader in patent trolling - that is what they set out to do. One of its co-founders in fact coined the term "patent troll" while watching the practice in play at Intel. IV are relative experts in the business of patent trolling, and are doing it on a scale never before attempted by any troll. So, if you mean that HN commenters are singling out IV as a scapegoat for all patent trolls, I do not agree. It is entirely reasonable for IV to 0have to to answer to the community on the subject of patent trolling. It is their core business.
If on the other hand you mean all patent trolls, including IV, are effectively a scapegoat for the systemic problems inside the PTO, then you might have a point.
With regard to tax collecting, invention is worth something for sure. Too many patents are used for defensive purposes only, but let's leave that aside. Having rights to an invention is commonly a necessary precursor for successful innovation. With invention, usually mutliple parties can lay claim to the same "invention". There is no shortage of "inventors". Rights to inventions that are never commercialized are always difficult to value. What are they worth?
Innovators are another matter. Innovators have to take on the risk. Successful innovators are relatively rare vis a vis inventors. IV is not an innovator. They do not bring products to market. That could change in the future, but as yet we have not yet seen anything more than PR stunts (e.g. donations of vaccine refridgerators). There's no reason to think IV will ever engage in manufacturing for the benefit of any inventor outside IV. IV's business is licensing. HN commenters are rightfully skeptical of any announcement that IV is anything other than a troll.
"They actually pay inventors."
Yes, IV pays inventors... if their implicit or explicit threats of litigation are successful... and then only after IV takes a cut. Law firms can do the same thing for inventors. But I never noticed anyone stating, "They actually do pay inventors." What's your point? Of course they pay inventors. If I ask a lawyer to find a licensee for my invention (or at least get someone to agree to a cash settlement out of fear of being sued), then yes, I expect to get paid.
How does that matter? Maybe the issue the commenter is raising is not personal. Maybe it has nothing to do with personalities or generosity. Maybe he is raising the issue of IV's business model: further exploiting a broken system.
Some might opine that such exploitation is not a good thing, and we should not condone it let alone support it.
We can all make solid returns from patent trolling with very little risk. Seriously. The money is great. The USPTO is not going to fix the problems any time soon.
Does that mean we should all be working on patent troll "businesses"? Should we be doing all our business through shell corporations with PO Boxes in Eastern Texas? What if I could guarantee you a reasonable return? Would you invest in my patent trolling business? Why did Myrvold have to use his own money to start IV? Did he not want to take outside investment? Or maybe there was some other reason?
I'm not sure what you think he and Detmer are trying to do with IV. I think they're trying to make money as a tax collector on innovation. More power to them. The system allows this. It's all legal.
However, I can't quite see how the taxes innovators must pay to IV are adding any value. At best, they are paying for protection (nevermind why they should need such protection in the first place).
Educate me. What am I missing?