A Quote by Nathan Myhrvold

Making money from enforcing patents is no more wrong than investing in preferred stock. — © Nathan Myhrvold
Making money from enforcing patents is no more wrong than investing in preferred stock.
In many cases, the Treasury will get preferred or convertible preferred stock for the money it gives to banks. These shares typically don't have voting rights, possibly to give more of a hands-off appearance to the government.
More money is lost anticipating the changes in the overall stock market than any other way of investing.
Normally I would not recommend a book that tells you how to make money in the stock market. Most of these books are aimed at gullible folk, and they usually make much more money for their authors than they do for the investing public.
IBM isn't investing billions of dollars every year into research and development - and winning more patents than our top 10 competitors combined for more than a decade - as an academic exercise. But research is now being driven much more by what people need rather than just by what is possible.
We are seeing a lot of cases where the startups are writing the term sheet, dictating the terms, selling common stock instead of preferred stock, where they don't give the investor veto rights or board seat or privileges, and they are really asking the investor -- why should I take your money when there is other money available.
If investing is entertaining, if you're having fun, you're probably not making any money. Good investing is boring.
Patents are like fertilizer. Applied wisely and sparingly, they can increase growth. But if you apply too many chemicals, or make patents too strong, then you can leach the land, making growth more difficult.
If a lot of money goes into the stock market, it'll push up prices, making money for stock speculators. Then the insiders can decide that it's time to sell out, and the market will plunge.
I advise women to invest in real estate. It is the collateral to be preferred above all others, and the safest means of investing money.
All intelligent investing is value investing - acquiring more that you are paying for. You must value the business in order to value the stock.
In my business investing, you are buying a stock, and someone else is selling the stock. Right there, that's like a debate. Is the stock going up, or is it going to go down?
[W]e think the very term 'value investing' is redundant. What is 'investing' if it is not the act of seeking value at least sufficient to justify the amount paid? Consciously paying more for a stock than its calculated value -- in the hope that it can soon be sold for a still-higher price -- should be labeled speculation (which is neither illegal, immoral nor -- in our view -- financially fattening).
Fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria.
Great work, professional relationships, and learning experiences compound over time, much the way money does - investing $100 today creates much more value than investing $100 a decade from now.
The underlying strategy of the Fed is to tell people, "Do you want your money to lose value in the bank, or do you want to put it in the stock market?" They're trying to push money into the stock market, into hedge funds, to temporarily bid up prices. Then, all of a sudden, the Fed can raise interest rates, let the stock market prices collapse and the people will lose even more in the stock market than they would have by the negative interest rates in the bank. So it's a pro-Wall Street financial engineering gimmick.
When you - when you - and this is still going on today - are making your money by pushing paper around, when you should be making your money by investing venture capital in various job-creating things, that makes it much harder to recover.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!