I'm not aware of any commercialized products based on their research, but they probably exist.
Like all patent trolls, they basically identify where a valuable invention is likely to occur sometime in the future, have lawyers draw up a sufficiently vague patent application, and spray and pray - and then prey.
There is zero follow up - no prototyping, no CAD files, no R&D, no clinical trials, no betas, no execution - it goes from nebulous "idea" straight to the legal department. If Myhrvold is an inventor, then Arthur C. Clarke's estate should get royalties on every satellite in orbit, and Gene Roddenberry's should get a piece of every iPhone sold.
Wait, I take that back - Myhrvold is an inventor after all. He's the Henry Ford of patent trolling - a pioneer in its mass production.
Is that uncommon?
But yes, I would say that the development of the vast majority of inventions worth protecting would necessitate more than some scribbling on a bar napkin.
If the process begins with some vague "inspiration" about where an invention may lie, and then promptly ends with a call to your lawyer - no feasibility testing, no fleshing out of the concept, no iteration of thought, I would say that the patent system is fundamentally broken.