Without much fanfare, Intellectual VenturesThe largest patent aggregator, currently holding around 40,000 patents. Closely associated with co-founder Nathan Myhrvold. IV is often viewed as a patent assertion entity, although much of its activities are conducted through spinoffs, and the company is at least nominally in the business of producing inventions in-house. See our posts on Intellectual Ventures. has put up a searchable public list of over 30,000 of its patents. Was it something I said?
Seriously, this is a refreshing change for IV, which has, up until now, hidden its assets behind thousands of shell companies. It’s certainly a smart PR move, and it continues IV’s recent charm offensive to portray itself as a kinder, gentler patent trollAn entity in the business of being infringed — by analogy to the mythological troll that exacted payments from the unwary. Cf. NPE, PAE, PME. See Reitzig and Henkel, Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-Extort’ Strategies, and Implications for Innovating Firms..
In a similar move, Conversant IP (formerly MOSAID) has put out its list of “Patent Licensing Principles.” The list emphasizes disclosureOne of the primary objectives of the patent system. In return for the government-granted right to exclude that is embodied in the patent, the inventor must disclose to the public through his patent the invention for which protection is sought. Inventors unwilling to disclose their invention to the public may instead opt for trade secret protection., good faith, and fair dealing.
So what’s going on here? Are these a different breed of patent trollAn entity in the business of being infringed — by analogy to the mythological troll that exacted payments from the unwary. Cf. NPE, PAE, PME. See Reitzig and Henkel, Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-Extort’ Strategies, and Implications for Innovating Firms.? Have they seen the light?
Short answer: no.
To be fair, IV and Conversant don’t rely on a lot of the abusive litigation tactics that most patent trolls use. Then again, they’re so well-funded that they don’t need to. Still, they’re certainly nothing like the bottom feeder trolls that go after small businesses.
But at their core, IV and Conversant are no different from IPNav or MPHJ. Their business models are based on forcing companies to pay for the right to continue doing what they’re already doing. IV and Conversant aren’t transferring technology to create new products; they make their money by identifying targets and demanding money. They just do it politely.
IV and Conversant often get lumped in with the less savory patent trolls, and that’s not good if you’re trying to influence the conversation on patent reform. (See here and here.) And that’s likely why they’re trying to change their images.
So this isn’t about a “better” or more socially acceptable patent trollAn entity in the business of being infringed — by analogy to the mythological troll that exacted payments from the unwary. Cf. NPE, PAE, PME. See Reitzig and Henkel, Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-Extort’ Strategies, and Implications for Innovating Firms.. This is putting lipstick on a pig.
The purpose of the patent system is “to promote the progress of … the useful arts.” IV and Conversant, however, see the patent system as something to be exploited for money.
Remember, wearing a nice suit doesn’t mean you’re a good guy:
[youtube_embed id=’7GSgWzmR_-c’]