Man if ever I wanted to believe in Hell, these guys are the ones to inspire me.
The Planet Money reporters asked this very question. IV offered bupkis in response, rather sending them on a wild goose chase. I only hope Mhyrvold starts patenting culinary ideas, just to spread the joy.
I know of a rather serious source that says patents are a net evil, baked up by… centuries of evidence: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
About the values of ideas, it is quite evident that most patents' ideas are extremely valuable. The more obvious the idea, the more valuable it is. The artificial scarcity created by the patent system merely shows how valuables simple ideas actually are. Imagine for instance that breathable air becomes scarce. How much would you be willing to pay for it if it meant your life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History -> "Patents in the modern sense originated in 1474"
And of course, the Watt's steam engines patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt#Patents
Also, they made a general statement, which we could have dismissed thus: "OK, the patent system is a net good. But _software_ patents are definitely bad [a few decades of overwhelming evidence]". This is generally what we see here an HN.
However, I think we can attack their statements more directly, as "Against Intellectual Monopoly" did. I also think we should do so, instead of just defending our corner of the industry. My current position is, the concept of patent is broken at its core. It simply doesn't work, never did, never will. Hey, I even heard that the first patent systems actually were disguised trade barriers, meant to protect the established, local industry. At that, they did work.
Instead they are creating a false dichotomy of "patents can be good for inventors, so we can't be doing anything wrong"
Yes, shocked, shocked ....
They've actually been trying for some time now.
Michael Jackson attempted to patent some of his dance moves.
There's been discussion of patenting specific sports plays.
There are also discussions and stories looking at fields which work well without (or by ignoring) IP protections: comedians, fashion designers, jazz musicians. Even this bunch of hippie freaks doing something they call "free software", but I don't think that will ever amount to anything.
At least in the technology companies ive worked for, the strategic value of patents comes purely from the fact that having them can keep frivolous lawsuits at bay.
They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive."
Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong.
And who, or what, do they think they are disrupting? Isn't IV the incarnation of the status quo?
Reading their website feels like reading a politicians...