But maybe that counts for nothing when an emotional topic like patents is involved. Look, an ugly troll, let's throw some rocks!
But also they have done some really cool stuff. Like they have this device that uses laser to shoot down individual mosquitoes, but not just any mosquitoe, but uses technology to see how the blood is flowing in the mosqitoe (as its flying through the air) to decide which mosqitoes are carrying malaria, and only shoot those.
He also has built a portable refrigeration unit that can store vaccines (and other meds) for long periods of time with no power. Besides the cookbook though, I don't think he's created anything you'd buy at a store. Most of his work is focused on environmental and 3rd world issues.
Yes, tongue firmly planted in cheek.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-08-21-...
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson#Patents_and_...
(The USA Today link above was a reference from this WP page)
I can only assume you don't know anything about MS Research. They've been producing more published CS papers than anyone else for years now. They conducted the user studies that went into region-specific handwriting recognition on their tablets, and the Office Ribbon. They also developed the vision system in the Kinect. http://research.microsoft.com/ They're doing an amazing amount of research there.
That makes Intellectual Ventures a Non-Practicing Entity, right?
I think we can rationally judge Myhrvold to be a troll at this point. We don't need emotional responses.
Second, patent law doesn't have an independent invention excuse. One can invent something, not patent it, and use it for years without running into trouble. A Non-Practicing Entity can get a patent, and sue you into oblivion. How many cases of "patent holder sues 10 tech giants" have you seen in the news? Do you suppose that every one of the 397 companies (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-and-google...) sued by GeoTag, Inc. filched the idea behind the patent? Do you suppose that any of those 397 companies copied the idea from GeoTag, Inc's product(s)?
Do you think that Intellectual Ventures has any intent of producing product(s) with any of it's large number of patents?
That's certainly consistent with the current, US Constitution basis for patents, to encourage general progress by giving a limited monopoly to an inventor.
It's not consistent with any kind of "ownership basis" for patents, which gives someone a monopoly on an idea because of the exceptional, very special nature of the invention. If we grant ownership of an idea to someone based on the incredibleness of their invention, then surely an independent inventor deserves the same, or maybe even more, privilege on the idea.
Patent cases don't consider whether the alleged infringer "stole"/copied the idea, or thought of it independently. The one study that has been done on this appears to support independent invention in almost all cases: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160
Also it makes sense that most cases would point to independant invention, as if a business stole it they'd have every reason to believe they'd get caught... maybe. My point is that if independant invention was a successful defence then perhaps 'everyone' would use it and most patents wouldn't work at all.