> 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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Written English is hit and miss, but spoken english is definitely the Universal common language for business in Singapore.
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.
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.
There is rarely an invention 101. Many people can teach themselves.
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.
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]
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.
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.
You might find some under-20s that could be in the same category as Elizabeth Holmes.
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?
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".
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.
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?
why are you bringing that up?