Ex-Microsoft CTO claims patent 'problem' is myth

ASPEN, Colo.--Not only have fears of a patent crisis been greatly exaggerated, but the U.S. patent system is functioning quite well, Microsoft's former chief technologist said Tuesday.

Nathan Myhrvold, now the chief executive of a start-up company that exists to create and license inventions, told a conference here that "before you get worked up about this gigantic problem, you ought to see what the facts are."

Patent litigation represents only 3 percent of federal lawsuits and there has been a steady decline in the number of lawsuits filed per patent, Myhrvold said. "Almost everything you have heard about patent litigation statistics is not true," he said. "Patents are the least litigious part of intellectual property law."

Myhrvold's company, Intellectual Ventures, is a kind of venture capital firm for ideas. It accumulates intellectual property in areas like communications, information technology and biotechnology, and then licenses the patents--meaning that its business model depends on robust patent laws, the stronger the better.

The concept has been criticized for possibly sparking more patent litigation. It could also make it more difficult for free software advocates to write certain types of programs in areas where Intellectual Ventures owned patents.

Another myth is the worry about so-called patent trolls--companies that exist only to accumulate patents and extract licensing fees, Myhrvold said at the Progress & Freedom Foundation's annual conference. "There isn't any hard data to support" the view that this is a problem, he said. "This is a great example of people having a bunch of anecdotes...I don't see that it's wrong to invent without making products."

In June, Rep. Lamar Smith introduced a bill that would make it easier to challenge patents after they were granted.

But Myhrvold said that was a modest change, suggesting that real improvements could come from creating a special patent court and making it easier for patent examiners to use the Internet to conduct research into prior art.

[ebrandel]

What's next?

An article featuring a spokesman from RJ Reynolds saying that cigarettes are no big deal? Or from BP telling us not to worry about gas prices? Or form Budweiser saying that anti-drunk driving laws aren't needed?

<i>Another myth is the worry about so-called patent trolls--companies that exist only to accumulate patents and extract licensing fees</i>

That's exactly what his company is!

<i>Intellectual Ventures ... accumulates intellectual property in areas like communications, information technology and biotechnology, and then licenses the patents</i>

Come on!

[michaeljmac]

This is news?

Why is this a story? Cigarette companies saying cigarettes aren't so
bad. Alcohol companies saying alcohol doesn't really affect people.
Why would someone even print this?

The Patent Law is among the worst and most outdated legislation
in existence. It totally need to be reworked from scratch. First and
foremost, outlaw software patents. That's what copyrights are for!

[nrlz]

LOL

Maybe CNET deliberately published this story to mock them. I found it a rather satirical piece. Something like the, "Interview with a Spammer" article, where the spammer claimed to be actually helping users by introducing useful and potentially helpful products.

Misleading about patent trolls

Referring to the so-called "patent trolls", Mr Myhrvold says "I don't see that it's wrong to invent without making products". This is misleading.

A patent troll is not a company which invents a product and then consciously decides not to market it.

Instead, patent trolls typically purchase patents from starved inventors or dead startups. Hence the nickname "intellectual vultures".

Patent trolls do not bear the cost and risk of exploring multiple approaches to a problem, which is what the patent system (supposedly) is for.

[Scott W]

3% of federal cases

that's because most people are terrified to take on MS in court. one man with little legal knowledge vs the biggest company on earth alongside one of the best legal teams on earth.
yeah, i want to be that little guy. &lt;/sarcasm&gt;

Where have we heard this before?

Cigarettes are safe. There is nothing to worry about. -- Cigarette Cos.

Enron's books are good. There is nothing to worry about. -- Arthur Anderson

Myrvold is supposed to be a pretty smart guy, so certainly he knows the conflict of interest here. Moreso, he probably sees the problems that patent squatters have caused, the call for legislation, and his attempt to assuage the public about companies such as his.

At the end of the day, he is a patent squatter. Call it what it is.

[Sentinel]

It is ridiculious!

Reading this story made me furious. Furious because I see a company claiming something that everyone knows isn't true. He claims that "patent trolls" are a myth, and his company is the same. Dealing in non-tangible, so-called "products". I buy and license ideas. How ridiculious does it sound?

He claims that only 3% of federal lawsuits are patent litigation, so it's not a problem. Tell me this, if it wasn't a profitable "market", would he have started a company that deals with it. No doubt they will make more money from lawsuits than from license fees. I don't have statistics, but I read news about patent lawsuits practically every day, enough to make me worry. Perhaps it is true that only 3% of lawsuits are patent lawsuits, but the money made from winning just one is enough to put any start-up out of business. The very existence of such a company is evidence that patent trolls exist, and they pose a very serious threat to progress and innovation.

[dargon19888]

Sigh. Must be a slow news day....

A story about a former Microsoft Exec going out on his own and create a company to hold patents?

Geez.

First, lets be clear here. This maroon is a patent troll. Seems he must have seen the light after Microsoft hired a former IBM exec.

Second, lets limit the discussion to software patents, which is what we are talking about.

If one were to actually sit down and do the research, almost all of the existing software patents could probably be invalidated. But think of the time and expense required.

Where's the gain?

Clearly this article was to hype this maroon's company and use a news.com shill under the guise of journalism.

Only in America. ;-)

[Len Bullard]

3% of What?

The percentage seems low but if you look at the costs of litigation (money + time + opportunities lost while litigating + punitive actions by litigated parties), you realize only deep-pocketed high-payoff litigations occur.

Be specific, Nathan. The effects of patents and intellectual property vary enormously by industry and individual suit. You're being disingenuous right to the edge of dishonesty.

[nopieinthesky]

Give him a BREAK !

LOOK AT YOURSELF!
We are all driven by our passions in Life and most people that are successful in business, fail in discretion and focus mainly on their own hidden agendas. Why does misery love company and personal attacks become so newsworthy?