Apple Declines to Invest in Intellectual Ventures' Patent Buying Fund

After collaborating with patent buying company Intellectual Ventures to purchase Kodak patents in 2012, Apple is now rebuffing offers by IV to invest in is latest patent acquisition fund, reports Reuters. Though both Apple and Intel have declined to participate, rivals Microsoft and Sony have been persuaded to contribute to a new round of patent buying.
"Microsoft and Sony's investments give IV a fresh war chest to buy new patents," said Kevin Jakel, chief executive of Unified Patents, which advises tech companies on alternatives to patent aggregators like IV.

Intellectual Ventures is one of the top five patent owners in the U.S. and has a portfolio of over 70,000 patents and intellectual property assets. The company has raised $6 billion for patents and is courting investors like Apple to raise an additional $3 billion.

Intellectual-Ventures-logo
Microsoft, Sony, Apple and Intel have invested in Intellectual Ventures in the past, giving them access to IV's patent holdings and a portion of the royalties it collects. Apple didn't comment on its recent decision not to invest in IV, but one intellectual property expert believes it is not related to the company's recent efforts to influence patent legislation in the U.S.
"Amy Landers, an intellectual property professor at University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, said Apple and Intel's decision on IV's latest fund was probably unrelated to the political debate on patent reform.

"The companies that are not investing in the fund have probably just found better uses for their money," Landers said.

Apple recently joined the new Partnership for American Innovation, a patent reform lobbying group that includes DuPont, Ford, General Electric, IBM, Microsoft and Pfizer. The group is opposing recent patent reform legislation that they claim may hurt actual innovations that need patent protection.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

7 months ago
Smart.

Any involvement by Apple in such a venture (with the use of patents as an offensive weapon, seeking to license or deliberately hinder competition, as opposed to defensive ('stealing'/taking 'heavy inspiration' from competitors) capability.) would be disastrous in terms of higher moral ground in the courts.
Rating: 1 Votes
7 months ago
It sickens me that a company profits by sitting on patents. It's just as bad as the trolls who buy up numerous online sites and hold on to them, selling them for ridiculous amounts. It's lazy and benefits no one.
Rating: 1 Votes
27 weeks ago

It sickens me that a company profits by sitting on patents. It's just as bad as the trolls who buy up numerous online sites and hold on to them, selling them for ridiculous amounts. It's lazy and benefits no one.


Agreed. Welcome to unrestrained capitalist greed and speculation. Ethics has no place in capitalism, right? "The only ethical system" my ass.

----------

No it's called business. I buy stocks in hopes of a good ROI, a dividend or rise in prices. Buy a house and rent it out then sell it later. Buy low sell high. Franchises. Real estate. Why not patents?


Yeah, the defense of unethical and society-destroying (market-destroying) behaviors by way of calling them "business". Why not patents? Because it defeats the entire point of patent law!! The system is so beyond broken.
Rating: 1 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]