Comment by Procrastes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Procrastes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> “I realized that I could have just as well been looking into the eyes of a Steve Jobs or a Bill Gates.”

> Though Theranos is largely unknown even in Silicon Valley, that is about to change.

> Precisely how Theranos accomplishes all these amazing feats is a trade secret.

> The analyzers look like large desktop computer towers. Holmes declines to explain how they work, or even allow them to be photographed, citing the need to protect trade secrets. The company manufactures them at an unmarked facility I toured in a research park across the South Bay from Palo Alto, in Newark, Calif.

> the single most accomplished board in U.S. corporate history. It includes former U.S. Secretary of State, Treasury, and Labor George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry; former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger; and former U.S. Senators Sam Nunn and Bill Frist

> In a rare if not unprecedented rout this past March, the patent holders unconditionally surrendered midtrial, stipulating to the invalidity of their own patent. As a kicker they agreed–though the presiding judge would have been powerless to order such a thing himself–to bring no additional patent suits against Theranos for five years.

> retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, explaining why he signed up last fall as another of Theranos’s strikingly illustrious outside directors. Mattis had stepped down just months earlier as commander of the U.S. Central Command–the chief of U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia

... zombie ... apocalypse

I skimmed through the first part, but based on your comment I went back and read the article.

> As a bonus, board meetings are also attended by the company’s de facto legal adviser at large, trial lawyer David Boies.

Boies represented the DOJ in the Microsoft antitrust proceedings and Al Gore in Bush v. Gore.

What an odd cast for a startup board. I wonder what connects all these people, other than all being high-profile.

"What an odd cast for a startup board. I wonder what connects all these people, other than all being high-profile."

Government relations. Influence with policymakers and thought leaders. Makes total sense for a med-tech company. This is an industry where "non-market factors" (government regulation, threat of competitive lobbying or lawsuits by incumbents, etc.) play an enormous role. If I were starting a med-tech company that threatens a $60B+ industry with hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying efforts every year, I'd love to have a board featuring policy elites, ex-government officials, and a legendary trial lawyer who's argued successfully in front of the Supreme Court on multiple occasions.

The only person she's missing here is Bill Gates. (And it would be quite interesting to see him and Boies on the same side after all these years.)

Why would that be interesting?

Boies is an attorney, he doesn't display his own point of view, he is (one of the best in the world) professional presenter of clients' point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boies#Notable_cases

"Interesting" meaning it would be interesting to see them in a room together. Meaning fun.

I'm not suggesting Boies was anything but neutral in the case against MSFT. Maybe reading too much from my "on the same side" comment, or else maybe I phrased that too ambiguously.

I know its all highly secret, but how awesome would it be to read Bill Gates's take on the technology?

Her father. Holmes comes from a very wealthy and prominent family. Her father, Christian Holmes IV, has had many high ranking jobs in government. I'm assuming the board was built from his numerous government and family wealth connections.

Coming from wealth doesn't hurt but somehow the articles always leave that bit out ...

> Coming from wealth doesn't hurt but somehow the articles always leave that bit out ...

It's not a "sexy" PR piece if the story reads "Wealthy people get Wealthier", now is it? ;-P

It's always left out, and this I will get bashed again for agreeing. I think what she is doing is great. I sometimes think doctors prescribe medication and just hope for the best? Actually, they do just hope for the best! I know they shy away from any technology that could be used againt them in a malpractice suit. As, to getting better if you are sick--just believing you will get better is so important. Yes, follow doctors orders, and believe you will get better. This effect, called the Placebo Effect is too often left out. I've seen people run to the Internet when they are diagnosed with a disease--and they just get worse. Back on topic--I hope her company helps patients, and brings down the cost of medicine, and not another investment story?

Now that's not necessarily true: http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/203578-pikettys...

Seems rather sad state of our Patent system here in the US where a 19 year old with no prior technical background, who was a Chemical Engineering student, a sophomore no less (meaning barely finished or finishing General Ed. requirements and just starting Major courses), can write and file for a highly-technical patent involving radios, sensors, embedded devices, and the like.

> And we could put a cellphone chip on it, and it could telemeter out to the doctor or the patient what was going on.

It's very doubtful she understood how any of that works, or would work in her product/patent.

Underlying story seems it's absurd this was patent-able.

I think you're underestimating her intelligence and capabilities. Clearly she had the background and the initiative. There are super smart and dedicated people out there. She sounds like one of them.

Beyond that, I'm not sure if the patent is absurd or not...but I definitely don't think its absurd for a 19 year old woman to write up and be awarded a patent.

No, I was meaning I find it highly unlikely she understood or could actually implement the technology behind her patent.

A 19 year old, no matter how smart, is not likely to have a thorough enough background to understand all of the related technologies involved in this patent. This is a medical device, and has to be "done right", or people can be injured or worse. I don't expect even a top-tier CS student could pull it off.

I'm not attempting to discredit her intelligence, just pointing out she seems to have been/is an "idea guy". We've all run into "idea guys", they'll pitch a great idea with all this elaborate stuff, but then can't execute on it without outside help. Perhaps she got help, who knows?

A patent is, more-or-less, a mere idea (which is absurd in it's own right, ideas should not be patentable imho). So, you are right, it's not "absurd for a 19 year old [gender-is-regardless] to write up and be awarded a patent", it's absurd it was patentable in the first place.

Back in 1963, I was tutored in calculus by a 15-year old who won that year's Science Talent Search for his research in nuclear magnetic resonance. He had completed essentially all of undergrad math and physics. I think you have a badly warped view of what is possible for smart people, whatever age.

No, I think there's a reason she recruited a professor in that industry who had well over 30 years of experience.

That doesn't detract from her intelligence, but I think it's safe to say she would have simply done it herself if she could have.

I think simply describing her as an "idea person" is also missing the mark, but so are you. She isn't a magician, she's just a person.

And considering she was 19 and in a normal college curriculum, it's very likely her talent is not in being super smart, but in being able to come at a problem sideways.

Or in being rich and well-connected.

Depends on how motivated the 19 year old was, and how much freedom they had to focus on what was important to them.

By the age of 14 or 15, most intelligent and motivated people have enough education to start learning advanced processes and systems. Say you start at 14, if you are focussed, by the time you are 19, you will have had 12,000+ hours of opportunity to develop expertise in your field. And Ms. Holmes sounds very capable (Learned Mandarin in her spare time as a teenager, as a result spent a summer at the Genome Institute in Singapore,etc, etc,...)

I would expect that there is a significant (if not excessively large) population of 19 year olds out there that can not only invent, and understand, but also design, and prototype advanced technological platforms of the same complexity identified in this patent.

We had a 13 year old in my Computing Science Undergraduate course at SFU who just absorbed and aced every math course he encountered, zero effort at homework or note taking.

Some people are capable of great accomplishments at a very young age, and strictly speaking, 19 is not particularly young.

> Ms. Holmes sounds very capable (Learned Mandarin in her spare time as a teenager, as a result spent a summer at the Genome Institute in Singapore,etc, etc,...)

Actually, that anecdote made it evident that the reporter clearly didn't do his research. If he had, he would have known that one of Singapore's draws since its inception has been its English fluency. This is particularly true in its white collar/STEM companies and research institutes.

Moreover, many of Singapore's ethnic Chinese are non-native Mandarin speakers, being of Southern Chinese descent. They would almost certainly feel more comfortable conversing in English than in Mandarin, particularly if they are highly educated.

I wonder if the Genome Institute has a lot of Chinese Nationals? But yes, agreed - I've been in Singapore for 14+ Months, and have never run into a White Collar worker who could not speak fluent english.

Written English is hit and miss, but spoken english is definitely the Universal common language for business in Singapore.

Since there's been so much arguing back and forth about this patent and its legitimacy and what it says about the state of the US patent system, I thought it might be a little useful to post a link to the patent in question:

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005025413A3?cl=en&dq=ininv...

Here's a search of all the patents with Holmes as an inventor: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=ininvent...

I hope this helps ground the discussion in fact to some extent.

I filed a patent at age 16; there are no laws governing how old you must be to file, and rightfully so.

While you may stereotype young people as being unready to write and file patents--and perhaps many are--at least some have developed the right skills and technical knowledge to do so.

Judge the patents on their own merits, not their authors.

Seems like a rather sad state of Hacker News when there is so much doubt heaped on a woman's technical ability just because of her age, and the fact she was unlikely to have completed the relevant formal education.

There is rarely an invention 101. Many people can teach themselves.

I think I should make it clear -- this is not a gender issue. Let's stop trying to make it one.

It, perhaps, is a age issue, sure. I have my doubts that an 19 year old chemical engineering student would have enough technical background to implement: radios, embedded systems, various sensors, medical analysis algorithms, database usage, notifications systems, knowledge of cellular technology, agreements with hospitals and insurance companies, etc.

However, here in the US, a patent is more-or-less just an idea -- meaning, one can think-up something, and patent it. That is valid.

My thoughts are, the article was obviously a puffy PR piece, designed to make the company look good. I believe she was an "idea guy" and was awarded a patent for that idea, then likely brought in outside help to implement it... which is very very common.

Well, you'd be mistaken. There are people who learn 3, heck, even 10 times faster than your standard bright university student, in large part because they needn't wait for formal instruction. You have probably learned at this pace on certain topics.

Such people can defy the standardized logic of what's possible by a certain age.

For example, Howard Hughes:

Showing great aptitude in engineering at an early age, Hughes, Jr. built Houston's first "wireless" or radio transmitter when he was 11 years old.[5] He went on to be one of the first licensed ham radio operators in Houston, having the assigned callsign, W5CY (originally 5CY). [6] At 12, Hughes was photographed in the local newspaper, identified as being the first boy in Houston to have a "motorized" bicycle, which he had built himself from parts taken from his father's steam engine.[7] He was an indifferent student with a liking for mathematics, flying, and things mechanical, taking his first flying lesson at 14 and later auditing math and aeronautical engineering courses at Caltech.[5][7]

Philo T. Farnsworth:

Farnsworth excelled in chemistry and physics at Rigby High School. He asked his high school science teacher, Justin Tolman, for advice about an electronic television system he was contemplating. He provided the teacher with sketches and diagrams covering several blackboards to show how it might be accomplished electronically. He asked his teacher if he should go ahead with his ideas, and he was encouraged to do so.[13] One of the drawings he did on a blackboard for his chemistry teacher was recalled and reproduced for a patent interference case between Farnsworth and Radio Corporation of America (RCA).[14]

Yes, these people exist in the population. I'm inclined in most instances, this included, to "bet the field" when such an intelligence is claimed to be presented. I find it more likely that she is an "idea person" than a modern Farnsworth simply because the former is only about 10,000x more likely (perhaps 1,000x more likely if you get all Bayesian on me).

But fortunately for all of us my opinion, and that of the person you responded to, are irrelevant and only good for intellectual quibbling. We'll see what becomes of this company and CEO.

With "resources" and "consultants, work for hire" anyone with funds can write a pretty decent patent application and drive it through the system.

When you file a patent application you can say it's pending, raise funds on it, get yourself a decent engineer, and file a continuation later with more "meat".

Patents are an expensive game.

Hey, look at this website http://www.thielfellowship.org/home/

You might find some under-20s that could be in the same category as Elizabeth Holmes.

> Seems rather sad state of our Patent system here in the US where a 19 year old with no prior technical background, who was a Chemical Engineering student, a sophomore no less (meaning barely finished or finishing General Ed. requirements and just starting Major courses), can write and file for a highly-technical patent involving radios, sensors, embedded devices, and the like. > It's very doubtful she understood how any of that works, or would work in her product/patent.

I'm not quite sure if I understand you right, do you mean to suggest she should not be able to apply for patents because she's young or because she's a woman or both?

I'm really not sure why you are attempting to make this a gender issue.

If you re-read my comment, gender is not even approached.

To summarize my post - I was making a statement regarding how absurd (imho) it is that someone can patent something they are not technically capable of even implementing. It is patentable because here in the US, patents are really just "ideas", so you don't have to actually implement the patent, just think it up. I doubt a 19 year old sophomore chemical engineering student would have the technical background to actually implement this patent... alluding to, she was just another "idea guy".

You should not be questioning the patent based on the person but on the contents of the patent. I know some 19 year olds that would absolutely astound you with what they are capable of. One of the things this website has taught me is to completely overlook the age factor.

To implement something described in the article, it requires experience, not intelligence, nor age.

It's the experience that is in question. There is a lot of radically different and unique technologies that would be required to be mastered in order to implement a medical device such as this, safely and reliably. Not to mention extreme business prowess to wiggle ones way into a tightly guarded community such as the medical industry.

(It's likely she brought in outside help to do the actual implementation, which is normal, other commenters have noted that she came from a family with great means, which would extend her reach by a great margin).

Originally, I was commenting on it being absurd that in the US, one can patent an idea that one has no clue how to actually implement/build. Perhaps that was not the case here (although it seems to be), but unfortunately that is the case for an awful lot of patents here in the states.

Anyone can think something up -- but to actually do it... that's a whole different beast.

> To implement something described in the article, it requires experience, not intelligence, nor age.

Well, there are people out there who have plenty of experience. People who have, between them, collectively hundreds of years of experience in the relevant fields. So why haven't they been able to do what she has?

Maybe because it was never really about experience, but about the unique combination of smarts, guts and drive that she has?

none of what you've quoted highlights her gender

why are you bringing that up?

They are all very strategic choices. Boies in order to protect the company from litigious incumbents, generals to help secure government contracts, and senators to help protect against legislative moves.

Here's how Theranos got all those high profile board members: http://fortune.com/2014/06/12/theranos-board-directors/

TL;DR: founder met/convinced one well-connected DC insider in 2011, and he brought all his buddies along for the ride.

Also noting that with the exception of Frist a quick read shows no connection to healthcare.

As others noted these board members appear for another purpose such as government issues or attracting others by the halo of their importance.

> with the exception of Frist a quick read shows no connection to healthcare

Well, there's also Shultz, who was "a director at biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences," according to this article.

But you're right that those people are mainly on the board for their influence in Washington. The importance of that when taking on an entrenched and heavily regulated industry can't be overstated.

The whole article was pretty weird. Anyone care to speculate what's going on here?

Cynical interpretation: well-funded med-tech company hires an incredibly well-connected board and presumably a great PR firm, and lands an epic puff piece in Fortune.

Uncynical interpretation: well-funded med-tech company quietly grows to become an inspiring success, thanks to game-changing technology and a brilliant founder.

I see both of these interpretations as compatible. In fact, #1 can often follow from #2. In either or both cases, this seems like the kind of company we should root for: using new approaches to technology to solve big problems. As another commenter in this thread put it: this is a lot more than just "Yo."

I had a smile on my face while reading this article. Regardless of the PR behind the article, it's certainly refreshing to see a startup like this. I'm rooting for them. Medtech needs game changing technologies!

Agreed. I say that as a tech geek and as someone who, unfortunately, is a frequent and regular blood-test patient.

Pretty clear, they are getting significant traction in a market dominated by 'old school' companies and players. Perhaps their PR department wanted to get out front with the narrative :-). Having friends that work around the FDA's influence it is a very politicized space. She clearly built her board such that she could counter those threats.

Ah, the FDA, that makes sense. There's a certain hallucinogenic quality to the prose that, when combined with the Kissenger namedrop, made me kinda nervous. I guess that's just because I don't generally read fortune magazine.

Wild guess? Someone at DOD or DOS has a simulation that really has them spooked and wants to get civilian testing coverage in place fast, so they've thrown support behind Holmes who has a way to do it. Zombie jokes aside, it's really a pretty reasonable first step for pandemic resilience.

Or Holmes is an alien who wants to inject everyone with vegan mind control spiders.

Either way it's likely good for humanity in the long run.

> Someone at DOD or DOS has a simulation that really has them spooked and wants to get civilian testing coverage

NORTHCOM maybe (they're the geographic combatant commander in charge of DSCA planning for pandemic influenza). But despite the horror show portrayed about the military in all the zombie/pandemic movies, the military wants badly to avoid anything to do with this mission at all, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're trying to get contractors to do the heavy lifting for response planning.

What is a near-certainty is that the timing of this piece is not random, especially considering that board composition.

Theranos == Umbrella Corporation?

"Theranos" reads very similar to "thanatos" to me, which is unfortunate. I had to force myself to read it as "thERaNos."

That struck me too. Hope it's not an inside joke.

This is getting more interesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com