|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
'claiming to invest in "pure invention."' and 'companies that might or might not be infringing on this patents.' are pretty non-neutral. (and grammatically incorrect, one might add).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ALLEGED#Expressions_of_doubt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Good source: Forbes Article (11-14-05)
Thalveg, it turns out, is a shell company, sister to others with names like Orange Computer, Purple Mountain Server and Maquis Techtrix. They are all controlled by a venture capital firm called Intellectual Ventures, based in Bellevue, Wash.
This brain trust, acting behind its myriad shell companies, has, according to one former executive, spent tens of millions of dollars since 2003 scooping up hundreds of powerful patents. What they intend to do with them is very much in dispute. Myhrvold's firm could represent the high-tech business model of the future, earning rich licensing fees from ideas without putting capital into factories. "In the 21st century we'll see a rise of invention companies," said Myhrvold in a February interview. He declined to comment for this story.
But former colleagues of Myhrvold and patent experts watching moves at Intellectual Ventures say the firm is less an invention company than a protection company. It seems to be set up to help defend its investors against so-called patent trolls, enterprising patent lawyers and small companies that sue but have few or no products for sale. Its patent library would presumably allow it to play an offensive as well as a defensive game. It could threaten or sue any firm that hasn't paid to join the IV gang.
Of curse that makes no sense. Most patent trolls, like IV, don't actually produce anything. Thus, you can't counter sue them for infringement on your own patent portfolio. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"In October 2009 Intellectual Ventures announced expansion into China, India, Japan, Korea and Singapore to build partnerships..." They did? In Oct 2009. Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
NPOV and introduction
I'll point out that the "This American Life" citation in the introduction applies both to this sentence:
In practice, much of their revenue comes from licensing patents from other corporations and filing lawsuits for infringement of patents.
and this one:
In fact, they have been unable to name a single case of aid they have provided to a single, independent, inventor.
I won't be surprised if people would like to revert my edit. But I want to hear a real justification! The "This American Life" piece pretty clearly exposed IV's statements that they support small inventors as false. If you want to take that out you should have another source contradicting it that is not subject to the corporate incentives IV is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The NPR story is surely relevant to the article on Intellectual Ventures, so it is not an urge to revert that I feel. However, common practices is to put controversies into a section by that name; thus, my urge is to move the newly added text. However, I grow weary for now, and hope that another will be sufficiently motivated to do the right thing. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. NPOV shouldn't be to the extreme of providing artificial balance where there is none. Putting the primary activity of this company (amassing patents and suing other companies largely with software patents) under "controversy" is artificial. If you want to use very formal language like "non practicing actor" than that makes sense, but you'll probably need "patent troll" somewhere in an explanation. Additional reference: http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/12/09/intellectual-ventures-becomes-patent-troll-public-enemy-1/id=13711/ - http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/12/innovative-invention-company-or-giant-patent-troll/ http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_27/b3991401.htm It isn't controversial outside of the company itself that IV mainly is a "patent troll" only the older article says "maybe" really (when it was suspected to be moving that way). I'm going to revert the tag. Based on this please let me know if anyone still strongly disagrees. Reboot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC).