Talk:Intellectual Ventures

message: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1114/166.html 
Extract...
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. 
Other articles:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6478691/site/newsweek/ 
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+alums+amass+thousands+of+patents/2100-1014_3-5929360.html?tag=nefd.lede
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.118.170 (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source: Forbes Article (11-14-05) 

message: '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 76.121.169.90 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro issues 

message: 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[2]. 
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 134.174.140.133 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV and introduction 

message: I am a connected contributor, as I work for Xinova, a company mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article on Intellectual Ventures. Recently, the article was edited to include inaccurate information about Xinova's relationship with Intellectual Ventures. Because I am a COI contributor, and therefore cannot make edits myself, I would like to request the community apply some corrections to the current Intellectual Ventures entry, as detailed below.
The entry currently states that Xinova is the new company name for Intellectual Ventures. This is not accurate. Xinova is the new company name for the Invention Development Fund (IDF)- formerly one of several funds managed by Intellectual Ventures. However, Xinova spun out of and became independent from Intellectual Ventures in September, 2016. Intellectual Ventures is still a going entity and continues to operate under that company name. Public sources to support this description of events (the renaming and spin-off of Xinova) are included below. 
I would like to request that the references to Xinova now included in the article all be reverted back to saying Intellectual Ventures. A mention of Xinova could perhaps be included in the section related to spin-offs (Terrapower, Kymeta, etc). 
The public announcement about the Xinova (the former IDF) spin-out from Intellectual Ventures occurred on September 28, 2016:
*
*
*
*
Niikusuke (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Peaceray (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Company Name & Relationship Description 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intellectual Ventures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630210845/http://www.intellectualventures.com/Libraries/General/Investing_in_Invention_Graphical_Representation.sflb.ashx to http://www.intellectualventures.com/Libraries/General/Investing_in_Invention_Graphical_Representation.sflb.ashx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified