Intellectual Ventures Biggest Invention? Getting The Press To Fall For Their PR
from the oh-please dept
A bunch of folks have been sending over this somewhat ridiculous love letter to Intellectual Ventures written up at Gizmodo (a site that usually is a lot more on the ball than what this post shows), which basically takes all of IV and Nathan Myhrvold’s favorite talking points (many of which make little sense) and simply parrots them back, acting as if the company is some sort of Willy Wonka chocolate factory of invention — but leaving out the hundreds of millions of dollars companies pay up as a sort of “don’t sue us tax,” and the incredibly sketchy nature of the over 1,000 shell companies set up by the firm and the entirely secret nature of many of its business dealings. Instead, the guy at Gizmodo is wowed by the fact that the company has computer hackers trying to cure cancer.
Now, I’m all for the idea of bringing together people with a very different perspective to try to come up with unique ways to solve problems, but that’s not what Intellectual Ventures actually does. Solving problems is not about invention. It’s about innovation. Nearly every great idea for a new invention turned out to be wrong. It was only when the products actually get to market that the creators realize the mistakes and tweak and adjust until the market finally tells them they were right. But that’s not what Intellectual Ventures does. At all. Buried in the middle of the article is the random aside that the company has been at this for 10 years and not a single “invention” it’s come up with has gone to market. None. Zero. You would think that would be worth unpacking and exploring, but instead, Gizmodo just says “you’d be sorely mistaken if thought IV was merely a “patent holding firm” or “patent foundry,” as it’s often described.”
Why would that be mistaken? The article doesn’t say. Instead, the writer just seems wowed by the fact that IV has lots of old scientific equipment. What a shame. It would be nice if someone actually asked Myhrvold and his crew some actual tough questions, rather than fawning over the fact he once dug up dinosaur bones.
Filed Under: innovation, inventions, nathan myhrvold
Companies: intellectual ventures
Comments on “Intellectual Ventures Biggest Invention? Getting The Press To Fall For Their PR”
Back scratching
Perhaps Gizmodo received a prototype phone from IV and is hoping for more…
Re: Back scratching
Yeah, this is the problem with ‘reporters.’ Priority one is maintaining access. It’s even more alarming when they’re the ones covering the government.
They paid money for a stolen iPhone 4. You think they have any journalistic integrity?
Has anyone seen the show Better off Ted? This place reminds me of the company from that.
Gizmodo is not that great at least for me, I got tired of them and those “fantastic” stories about how good some crap was and I knew about what they were talking and I knew that it was not true, seems to me they get paid by manufacturer’s these days to say nice things.
But on this one I will assume, that the guy is truly wowed by how much money Intellectual Ventures is making and wishes he could do something equal, which puts him on the level of blood sucking creatures but hey to reach its own whatever.
Again, As USUAL, learn what INNOVATION and INVENTION means. Then talk
Otherwise you make a fool of yourself.
Solving problems is not about invention. It’s about innovation. Nearly every great idea for a new invention turned out to be wrong. It was only when the products actually get to market that the creators realize the mistakes and tweak and adjust until the market finally tells them they were right. But that’s not what Intellectual Ventures does.
OMFG, do you ACTUALLY believe that rubbish, or do you think we are stupid enough to believe it ?
Either way, I have never heard such a load of biased, inaccurate, and outright WRONG, statement here for a long time.
Please, MIKE, if you can, explain that wildly wrong statement to us.
“Solving problems is not about invention. It’s about innovation.”
From this statement alone, it is blindly clear that you have NO IDEA of what an invention and an innovation is. Ive explained this to you before, but it seems you maybe a bit slow.
But if your statement is correct (which it is not) then you will be able to cite many examples to support that claim.
I note you have provided exactly ZERO facts to support that claim.
Possibly that is why what you say on techdirt has so little bearing on anything, as all it shows your readers is that you just “DONT GET IT”. And that you are willing to try to push your misconceived idea’s on other suitably weak minded people.
Innovation by definition means taking something that allready exists and using that in a new (or innovative) way.
The FACT is that “something” has to be invented in the first place, therefore innovation does not exist without invention.
You cant start with nothing and innovate on that item, you can start with nothing and create something completely new, that is an invention, someone else might INNOVATE upon your invention and make something else new, but that does not change the FACT that INNOVATION is imppossible without invention.
Ofcourse, by that definition MOST INVETIONS are innovations, but the reverse is certainly NOT TRUE.
You can innovate all day, and NEVER EVER EVER invent anything.
So more wild, unsuported, poorly thought out, misleading or outright WRONG statements from Mike.
Who seems to think if Mike says it the plebs will believe that tripe.
But as you’ve shown us over and over and over again, its You Mike that clearly has little or no understanding of these issues. Especially for someone who claims they know all about these things.
Then you go ahead and show the world that you cannot even differentiate between invention and innovation. very sad.
Re: Again, As USUAL, learn what INNOVATION and INVENTION means. Then talk
Do not feed the troll please.
Pretty please.
Re: Re: Again, As USUAL, learn what INNOVATION and INVENTION means. Then talk
They fed the troll. 🙁
Re: What A Load Of Baseless Drivel
What you should do is read through this site, starting with the links provided in Mike?s article above. He has a reputation for backing up everything he says, and it?s all painstakingly laid out in cross-referenced, easily-searchable form.
Don?t claim he doesn?t know what he?s talking about, because it just makes it painfully clear you don?t know what you?re talking about.
Re: Again, As USUAL, learn what INNOVATION and INVENTION means. Then talk
Darryl, care to provide one shred of evidence supporting your claims that are, as usual, completely wrong?
Re: Again, As USUAL, learn what INNOVATION and INVENTION means. Then talk
rant – tl:dr
Re: Again, As USUAL, learn what INNOVATION and INVENTION means. Then talk
Here is a riddle:
I hear my own ECHO and live IN A BOX.
My logic is awful BUT I THINK it rocks.
I can’t speel a word and my GRAMMAR are atrocious.
With the CAPS LOCK key I am ruthless and ferocious.
Answer (I’m a darryl)
Re: Re: Again, As USUAL, learn what INNOVATION and INVENTION means. Then talk
Can’t be Darryl. Way too short.
good morning, techdirt lemming-punks
ready for your daily oatmeal with another portion of anti-patent PR drivel from Mikey ?
Re: good morning, techdirt lemming-punks
Angry Dud is more apt.
Re: Re: good morning, techdirt lemming-punks
“Angry Dud is more apt.” +1 Funny!
The second biggest disappointment I have about IV is the fact that they haven’t brought to market the single greatest invention in the last 100 years. The Photonic Fence. What a waste.
Same Old, Same Old...
Wasn’t as bad as watching Charlie Rose continually flatter Nathan Myhrvold for an hour. By the end of it, viewers were led to think that Nathan was not only the smartest person in the world, but also the inspiration for the guy in the Dos Equis guy. Ughh… and I really like Charlie Rose.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1180
Re: Same Old, Same Old...
Let’s see…
“Myhrvold attended Mirman School, [3] and began college at age 14.[4] He studied mathematics, geophysics, and space physics at UCLA (BSc, Masters). At Princeton he earned a master’s degree in mathematical economics and completed a PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics by age 23. In 1984 he was awarded a Hertz Foundation Fellowship for graduate study. He also attended Santa Monica College. For one year, he held a postdoctoral fellowship at Cambridge working under Stephen Hawking, studying cosmology, quantum field theory in curved space time and quantum theories of gravitation”
Mike Masnik – BS and MBA, all in bs
So who is smarter ?
(and btw, Nathan has a LOT more money too…)
Re: Re: Same Old, Same Old...
You make the common mistake of failing to understand the difference between one who is “educated” and one who is “intelligent”. Not necessarily the same thing.
Re: Re: Same Old, Same Old...
And what about you? What are your academic credentials?