Intellectual Ventures Responds to Public Radio Investigation

(Page 2 of 2)

Chris Crawford, a guy who couldn’t figure out how to get paid for his valuable patents and sold them to IV.

Up to that point, the story was a fairly classic he-said she-said piece looking into a controversial, complicated issue. But the example offered up by IV wasn’t what it turned out to be: “So we went to talk to Chris Crawford. But that turned out to be harder than we thought—and it led us on a five month journey, where things did not quite fit the story Intellectual Ventures was telling,” the NPR report said.

Busted! From that point on, “This American Life” tells the fascinating tale of how the Crawford patents may not be all that unique, and were sold to a business that appears to consist solely of an empty office and some intellectual property lawsuits.

This reveals a side of its patent business that Intellectual Ventures doesn’t really talk about—the fact that, in addition to licensing patents to partner companies and occasionally suing recalcitrant ones, it sometimes sells patents to another party and takes a cut of any licensing revenue down the road. Other parties that, according to the public radio report, sound like classic patent trolls.

Why not just be up front about that? Who knows. But it doesn’t help IV rebut the claims of guys like investor Chris Sacca, who entertainingly compared IV’s licensing business to a mafia protection racket.

In the end, I thought this post by Business Insider’s Matt Rosoff really nailed a couple of elements that are at the heart of this overall story. Intellectual Ventures, he notes, didn’t create the U.S. patent system—“it’s simply taking advantage of the long-established legal fact that patents are property with monetary value, and can be traded like any other property.”

Rosoff also points out the fact that IV’s investors include the tech world’s biggest names, such as Adobe, Apple, Cisco, and Microsoft. Those companies are in court all the time in patent disputes, Rosoff notes, but have other things to do beyond amassing their own warehouses of patent assets, “so Intellectual Ventures does the work of mopping up inventions and turning them into patents. Then it turns around and licenses them to the companies who have the most to lose from patent litigation.”

So the bigger debate to have here is whether the U.S. patent system is actually working well, or just stifling innovation and enriching lawyers. And we’re clearly just at the beginning of that sprawling debate, with calls for patent reform growing louder all the time.

Single PageCurrently on Page: 1 2 previous page

Trending on Xconomy

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

5 responses to “Intellectual Ventures Responds to Public Radio Investigation”

  1. staff says:

    Call it what you will…patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to pay”. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.

    Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don’t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.

    For the truth about trolls, please see

  2. Gnstr says:

    I don’t like Patent trolls, but I understand IP pretty well, and there is much confusion on who is a Patent troll/ NPE. Sadly, I doubt the writer (and many others) clearly grasps what IP is all about. Patents are not a license to make stuff!! They are a brief privilege in return of full disclosure, and in fact are meant to help the poor guy with no resources to manufacture or set up a factory. Unfortunately big business has hijacked IP, sort of.
    So, most are filed years b4 the technology becomes mainstream, which causes people to question how certain principle is claimed to be protected by a Patent because these people are only familiar with the technology, not when it entered the market(most often they can’t tell you definitively a date when such technology entered into the public domain, but are quick to throw accusations).
    Thats not to say there aren’t extremely crappy Patents out there..there are. Loads!
    In the end you couldn’t possibly be smart, and make your money, legally, and by sheer hard work, intellect, spark of genius, knowing the right people (or any one or more of the these), without awakening an army of one or more of : (i) idlers untalented at nothing, who meddle in things they don’t understand (ii) ignorant fools with nothing better to talk about(iii) scribes, blown about by the newest controversy / popular sentiment (iv)failures with no dream / vision and an excuse of a life…