Former Microsoft CTO, cookbook writer and patent collector (the less generous might go so far as to use the term ‘troll’), Nathan Myhrvold wrote a controversial Bloomberg column this week, Patents Are Very Valuable, Tech Giants Discover. It’s pretty out there in its chutzpah. Riffing off Nortel’s sale of its patent portfolio for $4.5 billion to a consortium of companies that includes Myhrvold’s alma mater, he writes of the move as “a dramatic shift in strategy for technology companies. Suddenly these companies are acknowledging that patents are a strategic asset worth billions.”
Even if you overlook the idea that patents have suddenly, magically appeared on the radar of technology behemoths, which clearly isn’t the case, and even if you overlook the fact that publications these days regularly run articles by those with vested interests, Myhrvold’s article is incredibly, nakedly self-serving, one that details a very particular attitude towards a system that many consider to be an active obstruction to innovation. Perhaps the best response comes from Infectious Greed writer, Paul Kedrosky, who writes the amusing post, The Trouble With Nathan Myrhvold’s Pro-Patent Arguments. (One thing about SEO, it sure does take the fun out of headline writing.) Kedrosky’s conclusion:
This is an arms-dealer applauding the outbreak of hostilities, meanwhile pointing to people making war-like faces on the sidelines. (Whoa, watch out for those guys!) This is far, far from a disinterested observer of a fundamentally broken U.S. software patent system. Let’s end the deference.
thoughtyoushouldseethis-blog posted this