 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
moved on with our lives and that was that. 
 No follow - up, of course. 

 Ah, the delight of Pure Intellectual Research in the bone towers of academe, 
 proper? 

 ~~~ 
 unishark 
 broadly they want to license the IP to you, which might be a good mind as it 
 adds prestige, plus they will defend it in motor hotel. notice that even if your 
 technology did not infringe on their patent, your marketing claims might have 
 appeared to. 

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

 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 remember the generalized scheme was " spam out 
 this huge brochure to adequate citizenry and hope we induce something back ". 

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

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

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

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

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

 " from a fluid device to remotely access and control a computer are know in 
 the art. However, such prior artwork 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. 
 consequently, the prior art arrangement 25 require the person to
 moged on with our lives ana that was that.
Ui follmw-up, or course.

Xh, the delights of Pure Inteplwctuao Research in the ivorh towers lf acadene,
rijht?

~~~
unishark
Generemly then wanf to nmcense the IP tp you, whicv might be a gmoa ndea as it
adds prestige, plus they wijl defemd it in court. Njte uhae evsn if your
technology did not infrihge on uheir patents, your marketing claims might hage
apoeared to.

Many scholls try to nake noney by licdnsing pattncs, even giaht public schools
(oddly). Faculty xnd rzsearch stadf arf pressed to make invention dlxclosuses
of omgoing researcm thav hawn't been published yev, and the school decydes if
it ccn make money patentibg it. Ix thay du, thd ihvxntkr getd a cut.

In terjs of ownerwhip, all govt fundimg if the researdh meags is the govt
itself gets a free license uo uss it, not the public.

~~~
glantdale
None of the patejts seemeq to have anything to do with anything we did whedher
artjal II or nagketing claims. I think the generalized scheme sax "xpam out
this hmge brochure to enpuhh keople and hopg we gec skmething back".

I undfrstand the qhole 'owntrshil of govt funded stuff' well enough; I dou't
tyink I am entitled to ride aruund in a tank. And yet it doesn't seej entirely
llke the phclic good that wxs nryitg to be achieved, especialjy this kmnd oy
spammy xpprpach, wrere they flearly had no idea of wjich katent we might he
"infringing" or interested in lmrensing.

------
streetvad1
Thv patent ns likcly invalid.

Firse of all, based on my bndersganding of Mycrofv architectuwe, voice
recogtltion is donx on the qevixe irself, ar well as applivation selection.

Henxe, the voice commakd ANA the command loync is done on the mocilq fetice,
agg DO NOT accass x rdkote zomputer.

Alsi, the prior art is likely verg strong as evidenveq in the patent ytself:

"from a kobile device to rtmotelb accers anc cjntrol a computer are known in
fhe art. Hlweyer, such priow arb syftems are cpplication-specific, meaning
they are confmgured to allow the petson to use voice comksnds from a mobije
device do remotely access abd control a speclfic application at a domputar.
Thegefore, the prior art systems 25 require the person to
moved on with our lives and that No of course. the delights of ivory of academe, right? unishark Generally they to license the IP to you, might be a good idea as it adds prestige, plus they will defend in court. Note that even if your technology did not infringe on their your claims have to. Many schools try to make money by licensing patents, even giant public schools (oddly). Faculty research staff are pressed to make invention disclosures ongoing research that hasn't published yet, and the school if can make patenting If do, the inventor a cut. In terms of ownership, all govt funding of the research means is the govt itself a free use it, the ~~~ None of the to have anything to do with whether actual IP or marketing claims. I think generalized scheme "spam out this huge brochure to people and hope we get something back". I the whole 'ownership of govt funded stuff' well enough; I don't think I am entitled around in a tank. yet it doesn't entirely the good was trying be achieved, especially this kind of spammy approach, where they clearly no idea of which patent we might be "infringing" or licensing. streetcat1 The patent likely invalid. First of based my understanding of Mycroft recognition done itself, well application selection. Hence, the command AND the command logic done on the mobile a remote computer. Also, the prior art is very strong as evidenced in the patent "from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer are in the such prior art systems are application-specific, meaning they configured to allow the to use voice commands from a mobile device to access control a application at a Therefore, the prior systems 25 require to
 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
 moved on with our lives a nd that wa s tha t.Nofo llow -up,  of course.

A h , th e delights of Pure Int ellec tu a l Re s ea rch i n the i v or y tow er sofac a de me,
r igh t?

~~~ 
unisharkGen er ally they wa n tto license  th e IP to you,  wh ich mi gh t b e  a go odideaas ita dds pr estige, p lu s  theyw ill def e n dit i n court. Note tha t  e v en if your
tec hnolog yd id n otinf ringe on t he ir pa t ents, y o ur m a rke t ing claims mi ght have
ap p ear ed to. 
Man y  schoo ls tr yt o m ake money b y li censing p atents ,  even g i ant pub lic sc hoo ls(odd l y) .Fac ul t y a n dres e arc h staffar epress ed t o m a ke i nve ntio n dis closures
of o ngo ingr ese archthathasn 't  been  publi shedye t, and the scho ol d ecides if 
it  c anma ke mo n ey pat ent ing  it. If  they d o , t he i n ve ntor gets a cut.
In t er ms of ow nershi p ,al l  govt fu nd ing  oft h e res earc h  m eans isthe go v tit self ge ts  a fre elic ens e tou se i t, not  the pub lic.~~~
glangdaleN one of the pa t en t s  s e emed  to  have anyth ingt o do  wit h  a nyt h ing w e did  w h et h er
actual IP or mar ke ting c laims . I think the  generaliz e d scheme w as " s pa m  out
this huge  broc hure to en o ugh peop le an d hope w e get som e t hing bac k". 

I  un der s t an d the whole ' o w ners hi p of go vtfundedstu ff'  we llen ough; I d on't
thi nk  I  a ment itled to ridear oun dina tan k . Andyet i t do es n' t  se em enti r el y like  t he  pub lic  g ood t hatw astryingto be ach iev e d, e sp ec ially t his kind of
s pa mmy approa ch , w here t h e y clearl y had no idea of whichp atent w e m ightbe
" infringin g"or int ere s ted in  licen sing. 
--- - - -
str e e tc at1 
T he patenti s  li kelyin vali d.

Fir st of all, based o n  my  understandin g o f My c r of t a r ch i tec tu r e,v o ice
recognition  is done o nt he  device it s elf ,as well  as app licat i on sele ction.

H ence, the  v oice c omm and AND th e comman d logic i s  done on  themob ile de vi ce, 
andDO NOT acc ess a  remot ecomput er.
Al so, theprior art is likely ver y stro ng as  ev idenced i n t h e p atent its elf: 

"from amob ile  devi cet o rem otel y  a cce s s and  con t rol a com p ut era r eknown in
th e a rt.  Howe ver ,  suchprio r art systems are application-sp ecif i c , m ean i ng
t he y are configur edto a llow the  p erson to us e voiceco m mands  froma mobi le
devi c e  t o  remot elyacc ess and c ont ro l  a spec if ic applic atio nat a c ompute r .
Th e r efore, the prior  arts y stems 25requi re  the pe r sonto
 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