
Our first patent troll - hysan
https://mycroft.ai/blog/troll-hunter-mycrofts-position-on-patent-trolls/
======
PaulDavisThe1st
I hope they don't end up in court. I've been a fact witness in 3 patent troll
cases. The side I was a witness for won one, forced a settle-out-of-court for
the second, and lost the last one. The last one was the biggest and most
egregious. There was clear prior art, at least to anyone with a solid
understanding of the field (in this case, adding state to otherwise-stateless
HTTP interaction).

I remember looking the jury in the eye during my testimony and thinking "these
people are tired, they are bored and they don't really have a clue about any
of the technology involved here". Sure, it's the lawyers job(s) to try to make
sure they do, and that they decide in the "right" direction. But seriously -
taking a semi-random set of 12 jurors, sitting them them for 1-2 weeks of
court room "education" in network technology, protocols, filesystems, cookies,
URL structure and so much more, and then expecting them to come to an
"informed" decision?

This is not a justice system worth defending. In the last case, no jury of
"peers" \- ie. other engineers who actually understand what the patents are
about - would ever have found for the plaintiffs. But you end up in court with
a very different jury than that, and at that point, the battle has just
started.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
USA used to have an expert patents court AIUI, anyone know why things were
changed?

~~~
brlewis
No, nobody knows why things changed.

There was a U.S. Supreme Court case called Diamond v Diehr such that if its
precedent were followed, software patents like the one in the comment above
would never be granted. Somehow lower courts confused things enough that
software patents started being granted again.

Once you open up patents to a super broad and prolific field like software,
it's impossible to maintain enough expertise to assess novelty and non-
obviousness. And at that point the system completely breaks down. A
presumption of validity when the USPTO cannot reasonably be expected to judge
validity basically means that people are being denied due process when sued
for patent infringement.

------
redm
Having gone through this a number of times, and its never about the validity
of the patent. These patents are often acquired from defunct companies anyway.
If they don’t acquire, they have revshare deals for enforcing.

Patent trolls typically have almost no overhead, just a small office in a
cheap venue (Marshall Texas) and time.

Its simple math, 1) it’s cheaper to settle out then litigate (by far) so
boards usually want to settle, and 2) its too expensive to litigate, ie you
don't have 1-2 million to fully fight a patent troll.

Good for you for fighting. Ultimately thats what we've done and its the only
way to stop the Trolls. (Shout out to Lee Cheng formerly from NewEgg)

There are some patent defense consortiums that you can join that will share
the burden if you are sued by a troll making you a much less appealing target.

Good Luck!

~~~
streetcat1
Question,

So do you happen to know if the troll needs to prove that the company violated
a claim, or does the company need to prove that it DID NOT violate the claim?

~~~
chx
This will be fought on an entirely different level: the patent is bogus in the
first place. There's nothing patentable about it.

That's how you hunt trolls. Merely proving you didn't violate their patent is
not helping the next guy (and actually, you might have violated the patent,
who knows with these frivolous things). Killing their patent does.

~~~
anonsivalley652
There ought to be a super PAC / legal collective in US whose primary goal is
to basically hack the system by using it against itself for the net effect of
mostly eliminate the patent system with the chief aims of:

0\. making it harder to _get_ a patent (not adding arbitrary bureaucracy, but
ensuring examiners maintain high and fair standards) 1\. making it
harder/shorten the time to _keep_ a patent

EFF, ACLU, etc. might nibble around the edges on this issue, but there's no
one going after the politicians with lobbyists, a bucket of money and a deep
bench of patent attorneys funded by something like a Kickstarter/IndieGoGo
and/or subscription model to the tune of a Bernie Sanders-equivalent funding
level.

~~~
rayiner
There is an enormous, well funded, Silicon Valley lobbying effort directed at
weakening the patent system. The last Patent Office director was head of
Patent Strategy for Google for almost a decade. However, almost all the other
industries, from automotive to pharmaceuticals to aerospace, and even some of
the more traditional players in Silicon Valley, are on the other side of the
issue.

~~~
uep
No matter how detrimental software patents are to the big players, they are
far more detrimental to the small players. If it can keep the smaller players
from being real competitors, it's in the best interest of the big companies to
just pay the patent tax. They stand to lose far more with a lower barrier to
entry to their markets.

Software is kind of unique (and even moreso now with the prevalence of cloud
providers) with its otherwise low barrier to entry; as capital expenses are
extremely low compared to other industries.

------
modeless
East Texas? Should be thrown out after the recent Supreme Court ruling, unless
Mycroft actually has an office there. Apple went to the trouble of closing
their stores in East Texas for that exact reason:
[https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/22/apple-closing-stores-
in...](https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/22/apple-closing-stores-in-eastern-
district-texas/)

Did this troll not get the memo?

~~~
tim--
Interesting that this is the same area that Samsung spends hundreds of
thousands of dollars to 'bribe' the local community with feel good public
relations, like building ice skating rinks and donating monitors to local
public schools.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-40021491](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40021491)

~~~
nothrabannosir
NPR's This American Life and Planet Money had an episode on this phenomenon as
well. I think it was:

[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/441/...](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack) (2011)

follow up: [https://www.thisamericanlife.org/496/when-patents-attack-
par...](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/496/when-patents-attack-part-two)
(2013)

------
heisenbit
The first one claimed:

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US9794348B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9794348B2/en)

Abstract A method of using voice commands from a mobile device to remotely
access and control a computer. The method includes receiving audio data from
the mobile device at the computer. The audio data is decoded into a command. A
software program that the command was provided for is determined. At least one
process is executed at the computer in response to the command. Output data is
generated at the computer in response to executing at least one process at the
computer. The output data is transmitted to the mobile device.

It is worth noting (based on Google...) that they are the first ones against
which this patent asserted in court. Based on its broad applicability they are
clearly following a strategy of getting a few wins against weaker targets
before taking on the rest of the world.

Alexa, Siri please help!

~~~
rayiner
The claim is the relevant part, not the abstract. Claim 1 recites:

> A method of remotely accessing and controlling a computer from a mobile
> device, comprising:

> receiving audio data from the mobile device, at the computer, at an audio
> command interface; the audio command interface decodes the audio data into a
> command;

> the audio command interface selects, from two or more applications, one
> application the audio command interface decides is the appropriate
> application to execute at least one process in response to the command,
> wherein in deciding which application to select the audio command interface
> uses biometric data;

(This step is likely the basis for any claim of patentability over the prior
art. Interestingly, the patent doesn’t use the term “biometric” in the
specification. So there might be a written description or enablement problem.
Caveat: I’m a lawyer but this is not legal advice, just entertainment.)

> executing with the selected application the at least one process in response
> to the command;

> generating output data in response to the selected application executing the
> at least one process;

> and transmitting the output data to the mobile device.

------
lordnacho
The whole patent system needs a good looking at. I'm not a lawyer, but I did
manage to get a patent a few years ago. It was for something obvious (math in
fact!), but my business partners at the time thought it was worth getting.
Haven't used it to troll anyone, and I don't like the idea, but the process
did get me thinking a lot about whether patents are a net positive to society.

I think they aren't.

Having a patent system gives people the wrong impression that there's some
special nugget of knowledge that is crucial to creating value. You often hear
people who aren't in the entrepreneurial space talk about how they just need a
"good idea". In practice, there's very few things that work that way. Every
time I've started a business, there's been a lot of work that isn't so much
developing "the idea" as much as finding ways to connect it economically the
rest of the world. Whereas the naive view would be something like "once we
invent fusion, it will be easy to sell".

For similar reasons, exclusivity is not necessarily a good way to reward
innovators. Essentially my thinking is that innovating is actually only half
the work, if even. Say you invent the cure for coronavirus. How useful is that
actually, without a plan for making it at scale and distributing it? And what
is the chance that the guy who spent his life building cures for viral
diseases is also the guy who can build factories and delivery networks? The
retort to that may be that the innovator can outsource those things, but why
would we give them the exclusive right to do that, when he'd only gotten one
piece of the puzzle?

Patents also allow incumbents to create costs that deter new entrants. They
seem to be so loosely defined that any suitably large corporation that feels
threatened can throw them at any other player and the lawyers win, like this
article is talking about. It's great that they are fighting but there's a
problem if the troll has deep pockets.

One big issue that is mentioned is that the troll doesn't need to produce
anything working. So basically they don't need to show that they are making
anything of value. No customers needs to ever have benefitted from the patent.
So somehow the system would still punish an honest player who tries to be
useful to other people.

Finally, the thesis itself of how patents are supposed to work needs evidence
to support it. I don't see any evidence other than thought experiment to say
that something was invented because the patent system existed. All I see is
that if you can patent something, you do. Not that you try to invent something
because patents exist.

~~~
wizzwizz4
> _I don 't see any evidence other than thought experiment to say that
> something was invented because the patent system existed._

The patent system is designed to reward the publication of technologies, not
their development.

~~~
philipps
That is technically correct but in policy discussion and the Economics
literature patents are usually linked to innovation (where innovation is
defined as invention + commercialization). As the earlier poster suggests the
link may not be as strong as its proponents argue, but we don’t have a lot of
counter factual data. Innovative economies generally develop strong IP
protection around the same time they become innovative.

~~~
_jal
> Innovative economies generally develop strong IP protection around the same
> time they become innovative.

This is another way of saying "actors in less advanced economies ignore IP
protections until they've more or less caught up".

That was the US IP strategy, which it now decries when others follow it.
Enabled by faster international feedback loops, China is, er, innovating on
the strategy, simultaneously weaponizing IP law while also expropriating
through various means.

------
glangdale
We once got spammed by Columbia Universities' IP arm when we were a tiny
startup. They just send us this giant booklet of random patents with the
strong implication that there was some relevance to what we were doing, but it
just seemed like a bulk trolling effort.

We just threw it in the trash and moved on with our lives and that was that.
No follow-up, of course.

Ah, the delights of Pure Intellectual Research in the ivory towers of academe,
right?

~~~
unishark
Generally they want to license the IP to you, which might be a good idea as it
adds prestige, plus they will defend it in court. Note that even if your
technology did not infringe on their patents, your marketing claims might have
appeared to.

Many schools try to make money by licensing patents, even giant public schools
(oddly). Faculty and research staff are pressed to make invention disclosures
of ongoing research that hasn't been published yet, and the school decides if
it can make money patenting it. If they do, the inventor gets a cut.

In terms of ownership, all govt funding of the research means is the govt
itself gets a free license to use it, not the public.

~~~
glangdale
None of the patents seemed to have anything to do with anything we did whether
actual IP or marketing claims. I think the generalized scheme was "spam out
this huge brochure to enough people and hope we get something back".

I understand the whole 'ownership of govt funded stuff' well enough; I don't
think I am entitled to ride around in a tank. And yet it doesn't seem entirely
like the public good that was trying to be achieved, especially this kind of
spammy approach, where they clearly had no idea of which patent we might be
"infringing" or interested in licensing.

------
streetcat1
The patent is likely invalid.

First of all, based on my understanding of Mycroft architecture, voice
recognition is done on the device itself, as well as application selection.

Hence, the voice command AND the command logic is done on the mobile device,
and DO NOT access a remote computer.

Also, the prior art is likely very strong as evidenced in the patent itself:

"from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer are known in
the art. However, such prior art systems are application-specific, meaning
they are configured to allow the person to use voice commands from a mobile
device to remotely access and control a specific application at a computer.
Therefore, the prior art systems 25 require the person to have multiple mobile
devices and/or systems to remotely access and control the different
applications at a computer. Additionally, the prior art systems limit the
audible and visible feedback the person can receive from a computer while
using voice commands from a 30 mobile device to remotely access and control
the computer. "

So the patent admits that prior art exists for sending commands to specific
applications, but not for general application? , I fail to see the difference.

All voice commands are sent for a specific application.

Hence, since any voice command is for a specific applications, I fail to see
how Mycroft violated the current claim.

If you want an example of the prior art, here is a very famous system (from
2006)

[http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/](http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/)

In general, the patent shows its age, such that it confines itself to a simple
client-server architecture, where the mobile device gets the audio, and the
remote computer (the server) does speech recognition and command selection.

However, if you do the speech recognition on the mobile device, as well as the
app selection, I think that the patent is no longer valid.

~~~
istillwritecode
Mycroft does not do on-device speech recognition. That is currently
infeasible.

~~~
streetcat1
I was assuming that this is their main competitive moat against Alexa, etc.

I.e. that they avoid sending any audio to some central server.

It is possible:

[https://github.com/kaldi-asr/kaldi/issues/3571](https://github.com/kaldi-
asr/kaldi/issues/3571)

------
pushswap
"voice commands from a remote device to remotely access and control a
computer". Filed in 2007.

I imagine the IBM Simon would be an example of prior art being first
demonstrated in 1992.

~~~
mrtksn
That’s up to the court to decide, we wouldn’t know until spending a lot of
money I guess.

~~~
onli
Courts don't decide facts, and they are not the usual venue to invalidate
patents.

------
epicgiga
The root cause of this is the "American rule" of costs. It's no where near as
viable to troll when you have to pay their costs when you lose (especially
given that frequently the plaintiffs are lawyers themselves, so aren't
actually spending any legal fees to troll).

The case portrayed in the TV show "Silicon Valley" was illustrative: "best
just to settle because it'll cost us less", because the mere act of suing
itself financially damages the victim, often severely, given lawyers' typical
rates.

But not so under the "English rule": it costs you nothing if they lose.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I can't understand for the life of me why USA don't make awards of costs to
successful defendants, is there a logic to it that I'm missing?

~~~
patentatt
The benefit is that it lowers barriers to entry to the legal system.

~~~
epicgiga
That's not a benefit. "Entering the legal system" is just as often someone
suing you (including BS reasons like in the OP) as it is suing someone else,
and if you can't "enter the legal system" because you know you'll lose and
have to pay for it, that's a good thing.

------
keanzu
"We are going to litigate every single patent suit to the fullest extent
possible including appealing any adverse decisions all the way to the Supreme
Court."

~~~
lolc
They write this to scare off trolls looking for marks. They would not do this
in clear-cut cases.

------
mwerty
Related (and covered on hn before): [https://blog.cloudflare.com/standing-up-
to-a-dangerous-new-b...](https://blog.cloudflare.com/standing-up-to-a-
dangerous-new-breed-of-patent-troll/)

~~~
t0mas88
Interesting to note that Cloudflare went a few steps further and not only
tried to invalidate the patent but also took the troll to the state bar
association for disciplinary action. I'm not sure there is an outcome on that
yet, but I think the strategy to do everything you can to destroy the trolling
entity that sued you is a great one in this case. Might even consider filing
several lawsuits and complaints to overwhelm a small scale troll.

Or if you're the size of Cloudflare, bully them in other ways. In this example
it's an operation setup by just two lawyers, easy to make them regret going
after you if you make their work impossible. You could for example hire away
their legal staff, delay things for ages, screw with the personal life of the
two founders. They can't keep a small business afloat for very long if you
dedicate some resources to screwing with their operations.

Might even just sue their clients for something else (one of your patents for
example). In this case the client is a small firm in Germany, they would be in
a very bad place if they got sued in the US home district of Cloudflare and
had to defend. High probability that they would put pressure on the lawyers to
drop the troll suit.

~~~
chalst
Cloudflare took them to court, where the judge invalidated the patent.
Blackbird appealed and lost.

[https://blog.cloudflare.com/winning-the-blackbird-
battle/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/winning-the-blackbird-battle/)

------
javajosh
So, if you're interested in starting a software business, it seems like the
risk of being sued by a troll is close to 100% - how do you budget for this?
Is there something like insurance you can buy?

~~~
unishark
It's generally not a problem until you start making enough money (or get a lot
of funding) to be worth suing in the first place, at which point you can
afford to pay them off (or potentially fight it, though as noted that can be
much more expensive). There's supposedly recent changes in the law allow you
to fight patent suits without a million-dollar legal process. Not sure how
well it works for people.

I don't think the risk is really that high of dealing with a patent troll.
Competing firms are much more likely to sue you in my experience. To "insure"
against these you need your own patent portfolio to counter sue them with. Or
license some technology from a giant company that protects it for you. Or,
again, just pay them off.

Either way, the goal isn't to shut you down but to bleed you of some of that
money you are making. So it's a good problem to have in a sense.

------
api
Is there some historical reason East Texas is a rubber stamp mill for patents
and troll suits or is it just something they decided was a good way to make
money?

~~~
di4na
Yes. The main attorney specialised in patent law there is the son and nephew
of the judges.

They made a business of it

~~~
pwneror
Leonard Davis -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Davis_(judge)#Patent_l...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Davis_\(judge\)#Patent_law)

Bo Davis - [https://www.davisfirm.com/attorneys/bo-
davis/](https://www.davisfirm.com/attorneys/bo-davis/)

------
burlesona
Admirable stance. I hope these guys win.

------
breck
> For some inventions this makes sense

No. It never makes sense. You cannot justify the Intellectual Slavery system,
anymore than you can justify the Human Slavery system. It's a restriction on
human freedoms; it's incompatible with actual property rights (as it restricts
what I can do with my own physical property); it's a subsidy to those who were
born into it (when you follow the money that flows to copyrights and patents
holders, you see the majority goes to inherited wealth).

It's economically bad and morally wrong, is as much as you can have something
morally wrong. Here is a classic example of what the Intellectual Slavery
industry has brought us: [https://qz.com/1125690/big-pharma-is-taking-
advantage-of-pat...](https://qz.com/1125690/big-pharma-is-taking-advantage-of-
patent-law-to-keep-oxycontin-from-ever-dying/) half a million Americans dead
from a "novel" patent.

The system is utter garbage. We need to shatter the brainwashing that these
things make sense.

------
steveeq1
Do you have this guy's name? You should create a website with his name and
company in the domain. That way, it's searchable by google and so when people
eventually search for him, people will know what he does for a living.

While you obviously can't "win" in a legal sense, you can at least make it
know to his family and friends what he does for a living. If he does unethical
things in his jobs, he probably does other unethical things in his real life
and people should be warned about him.

~~~
xiweve8512
Voice Tech Inc Type: Corporation for Profit Entity #: 1551867 Partner: MICHAEL
D. GOLLER Partner: STUART E. GOLLER Agent: MICHAEL D. GOLLER, 2204 BLUEGRASS
LANE, CINCINNATI OH 45237 Filed: 06/21/2005

Who are the Goller's? [https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/news-columns-
blogs/tom-e...](https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/tom-
eblen/article65676402.html)

Jewish deli owner family. Now making a living as trolls.

Here's a photo of them: [https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/news-columns-
blogs/tom-e...](https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/tom-
eblen/dh1ody/picture65676392/alternates/FREE_768/160306AGS-Sun.094)

[https://www.crunchbase.com/person/s-e-
goller](https://www.crunchbase.com/person/s-e-goller)

------
supergirl
> It is also cheaper to give a schoolyard bully your lunch money than it is to
> visit a doctor. The thing is, once you pay the bully, he’ll just come back
> again and again and again. Eventually, that lunch money adds up to a lot
> more than a doctor’s visit

doctor? wat?

------
ElonMuskrat
<<< Patent trolls get paid because short-sighted companies make the decision
to pay. Simply put, it is usually cheaper in the short run to pay a troll than
it is to litigate. It is also cheaper to give a schoolyard bully your lunch
money than it is to visit a doctor. The thing is, once you pay the bully,
he’ll just come back again and again and again. Eventually, that lunch money
adds up to a lot more than a doctor’s visit. In the long run the best way to
deal with a bully is to punch him square in the face. You might take a
beating, but if you do it every time? The bully will find easier prey. >>>

This is very naive. Patent trolls get paid because they are highly effective
at weaponizing the legal system.

~~~
ScottBurson
You must not be aware of Newegg's success in defending themselves against
patent trolls. They demonstrated that stonewalling can pay off.

~~~
unicornmama
The plural of anecdote is not data.

------
theflyingkiwi42
In my experience, attorney fees for screw-ups (accidental or not) get very
rarely awarded :( Hope just fighting makes the troll go away.

