In his own words:

"The patent system exists to give economic incentive to create inventions -- not products. After all, profit is the incentive to create and sell products. In order to have a level playing field, inventors must have a full set of rights, regardless of whether they are big or little, or whether they make products or just invent. Those rights are what give them the incentive to work long and hard on new ideas that may not work. A lot of big innovative companies agree with this -- companies like DuPont, GE, Qualcomm and 3M, as well as the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, have filed amicus briefs in support of MercExchange and equal rights for all inventors."

"Perhaps the biggest myth is the danger "patent trolls" -- people who supposedly manipulate the patent system in a shady way. It does happen, but apart from some anecdotes, no evidence has been offered that patent trolls are a major problem. Court records show that only 2% of all patent lawsuits are due to plaintiffs that have no ongoing product business. Of that 2%, the vast majority are perfectly legitimate companies or universities. A tiny minority of patent suits are due to bad actors, but it's hardly a crisis. While I was at Microsoft, we encountered a couple of patent manipulators, but frankly we won those cases; at worst they were a nuisance."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114368437650611883.html

I think that on the balance IV in actual operation strives to create a good working environment for inventors and invention. I think that the invention session s that they holds and the work they do to commercialize is in fact a significant, genuine positive.

I think they are actually trying to do good, and are a net plus within the existing system.

That said, I think the existing system has long outlived its usefulness. I think, today, it is a net negative. The biggest problems: overhead, unclear rights, patents that should never have been granted, the assumption of validity, thickets, and injunction as the primary right. That, and the fact that it is difficult to willingly give one's inventions to the public.

But I have come around on much. In previous eras, I gave the honor to those who could create products and companies around their inventions. Ideas were cheap, I would say.

In fact, it takes immense determination to legitimately reduce an idea to practice -- the intended goal of a disclosure in the patent system. Through immense effort I have learned the ropes, learning to found companies and manage them, raise money, find markets, plan, recruit and manage commercialization and manufacturing. I might only get 10 - 20% of my time to invent. It is absurd that we ask all of our inventors to do this simply to make a buck. For every one of me there would be dozens who either couldn't, or shouldn't have to.

In private discussions with Nathan, he is well aware -- more than I -- of the limitations in the patent system. Nonetheless, within that system, he is trying to do a good thing. I do not call this evil.

My own company has essentially had its strategy forced upon us. We have applied for nearly 80 patents, at great expense of time and money, to defend ourselves from other companies. We had a great many ideas. Eventually, several multi-billion dollar organizations became interested in a few ideas we had patented. Each would be worth a huge amount to their organization if the product was successful. Should we not license the patent because the patent system is "evil?" Occasionally the system actually fulfills its stated purpose.

Intellectual ventures buys intellectual property, often directly from inventors. It sells particular chunks to interested buyers. In one, highly controversial "peacekeeping" tactic, IV buys and assembles bundles of packets, to destory packet thickets and get "live ammo" out of the play. They then license the bundles to large organizations, like Microsoft, Cisco, Apple. The big guys; selling them the closest form of freedom to operate that exists in todays world.

Is this evil? I think not. At the end of the day, through IV's actions, inventors get checks in the mail, large corporations get more freedom to operate, lawsuits that might have existed are defused, and some of the ideas that make the giant tech megacorps so profitable are actually paid for, to some extent, to their originators and appraisers. That is how the system is supposed to work.

It might be that the system has so much collateral damage that all these activities are a net negative. But let us not begrudge IV their intent. If actors are legally trying to do good within a flawed system, and in the process doing more harm than good, it is a flaw of the system more than the actor.

I basically think they've taken the flak for being a "patent troll" simply because they were a prominent target. They are scapegoating, without good judgement.

In fact, I believe IV is, at worst, misguided and large enough that missteps cause devastation out of line snd proportion to their intent, and at best, genuinely working to usher in a new age of private invention.