Partner Offers $10K Bounty for Blogger’s Identity

Internet Law

Partner Offers $10K Bounty for Blogger’s Identity

Posted Jan 22, 2008, 06:28 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

A Chicago lawyer who is being criticized, along with his law firm, in an anonymous Internet blog supposedly authored by a fellow attorney has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can provide him with the identity of "Troll Tracker."

The anonymous blogger, who claims to be "just a lawyer; interested in patent cases but not interested in publicity," has criticized Raymond Niro and his 30-lawyer IP boutique, Niro Scavone Haller & Niro, for representing clients who own patents but don't necessarily make products. Instead, the firm earns licensing fees from users of the patented technology—and potentially sues users if they don't pay up, explains the Chicago Tribune.

Although Troll Tracker claims a First Amendment right to criticize the firm anonymously on the blog, Niro says the blogger should take responsibility for his or her views. Plus, he points out, knowing the identity and affiliations of the blogger likely would affect the way that readers perceive the Troll Tracker's critique.

"I want to find out who this person is," says Niro, who initially offered a $5,000 reward in last month's issue of the IP Law & Business (reg. req.) magazine, and has since upped the ante to $10,000. "Is he an employee with Intel or Microsoft? Does he have a connection with serial infringers? I think that would color what he has to say."
Updated to add a link to the cited IP Law & Business article mentioned and to remove the word "trade" from that magazine's description.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Me - 3 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 12 hours, 41 minutes ago

It was me, Meh.
Posted by William E Kruse - 3 months, 2 weeks, 4 hours, 21 minutes ago

I couldn’t agree with him more. It is perfectly respectable make a stand against something you feel is wrong, but at least own up to your opinion. Posting anonymously is cowardly and pathetic.
At least we know one thing, this poster isn’t one of the thousands of bright individuals with great ideas but a lack of capital to produce them himself. They might disagree with his theory of licensing, as would most of us who benefit from those products making it into the market.
But what do I know? I’m still just a law student.
W. Kruse
Posted by Kevin A. Thompson - 3 months, 2 weeks, 2 hours, 25 minutes ago

Mr. Niro wants to know who the blogger is so he can sue his pants off.
Posted by Carol - 3 months, 2 weeks, 2 hours, 5 minutes ago

Right, Mr. Niro. While it is true that knowing the blogger’s affiliations might have an effect on opinion about his or her credibility, it has no effect at all on the validity (or not) of the blogger’s criticisms of you and your firm. Classic ad hominem attack.
Posted by Steve Perkins - 3 months, 2 weeks, 2 hours, 1 minute ago

Comment #2 is correct. Knowing the person’s identity would be great for satisfying curiosity, but I don’t see how it would impact the validity of what he’s saying. If I point out that a company’s behavior is that of a patent troll, then it either IS or IS NOT that of a patent troll. Knowing who I am and what my motivations are could assist with ad hominem counteracts (and retribution lawsuits), but would be meaningless to a merit-based explanation of the company’s behavior.
Posted by boring - 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 hour, 55 minutes ago

If I were the troll I’d turn myself in and collect that $10k. Surely it doesn’t cost that much to file a motion to dismiss.
Posted by Dave - 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 hour, 16 minutes ago

For those who know him, Niro and his firm are basically the epitome of the sleazy lawyer stereotype that the public has regarding our profession.
Posted by John - 3 months, 2 weeks, 43 minutes ago

Umm, #3, it’s “affect”.
Classic--oops, I mean--Common mistake.
Posted by Mark - 3 months, 2 weeks, 25 minutes ago

Yo, John. “Effect” is used correctly in #3. “Affect” is a verb. “Effect” almost always is a noun.
Posted by englishmajor - 3 months, 2 weeks, 24 minutes ago

#7 -are you sure? I thought something can affect an opinion, or have an effect on an opinion.
Posted by Unfocused Me - 3 months, 2 weeks, 21 minutes ago

Umm, #7, it isn’t. #3 used it correctly. The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th ed., p. 446, defines “effect” as “1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.” You’re thinking of the verb affect, not the noun. The noun “affect” means “Feeling or emotion, esp. as manifested by facial expression or body language.” Id. at 22.
Posted by Kim - 3 months, 2 weeks, 21 minutes ago

Umm, #7, it’s “effect.” Affect is a verb.
Posted by Law Student in Madison - 3 months, 2 weeks, 17 minutes ago

#3’s use of “effect” is correct. “While it is true that knowing the blogger’s affiliations might have an effect on opinion . . . .” If he had said, “While it is true that knowing the blogger’s affiliations might effect opinions about his or her credibility . . . ,” then he would have needed “affect.”
Posted by tempted - 3 months, 2 weeks, 4 minutes ago

Does anyone know whether you have to know anything about patent law to confess to the “crime” and collect the $$$$.
Posted by Cat out of the bag - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 23 hours, 55 minutes ago

I guess the cat is out of the bag. I am the one. Where do I collect the money from?
Posted by R - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 23 hours, 42 minutes ago

What are you talking about, Cat? I’M the blogger! Give ME the $10,000! (PS: What’s a “patent”?)
Posted by Carol - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 23 hours, 22 minutes ago

Hey there John, #3 here. Now, even if I had used “effect” incorrectly, which I didn’t, what the hell would that have to do with what I had to say? Or were you going for irony?
Posted by twilli - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 23 hours, 4 minutes ago

black letter rule of the day: check a dictionary before you put someone else on blast.
Posted by Tim Bracken - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 22 hours, 40 minutes ago

Has anyone ever heard of the Federalist Papers? The right to publish one’s opinions anonymously is as old as this country itself.
Posted by anonymouse - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 21 hours, 11 minutes ago

Listen, #s 14 & 15, you guys are TOO CHEAP. Let’s wait until he ups the ante to, say about $100,000 (surely with all those contingency fees he can afford it). Then, let’s all turn ourselves in.
Posted by Just J - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 20 hours, 47 minutes ago

#7....way to go.

If he were to find the identity, I forsee a lawsuit.
Posted by funny - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 20 hours, 31 minutes ago

Affect v. Effect.

Yes, #7 is wrong, but come on...Look at the comment trail. The image of all these lawyers posting about this is cute.
Posted by Student Blogger - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 19 hours, 45 minutes ago

I bet all of them work in patent law.
Posted by Ironic Twist - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 18 hours, 55 minutes ago

It would be ironic if the blogger was an insider at the Niro Firm.
Posted by Spartacus - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 18 hours, 39 minutes ago

No, I am spartacus!
Posted by MGrayce - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 21 hours, 33 minutes ago

Attorney Niro needs to grow up.
Posted by Panaqqa - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 16 hours, 29 minutes ago

Very interesting. As it turns out my business hosts a number of controversial websites including one blog that can only be described as “politically inflammatory”, and another best described as a “snitch site”. I have decided that short of violating a court order issued in the correct jurisdiction, I will protect the anonymity of my clients. I believe that breaking the anonymity of some people will have a chilling effect on free speech. And while some might not think exposing a patent troll is important I am sure that sooner or later an issue will come along that all can agree is. Certain whistle blowing possibilities come to mind.
Posted by publius - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 16 hours, 20 minutes ago

18 hits the nail on the head.
Posted by sandeep - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 16 hours, 13 minutes ago

Spartacus : Have we been reading bash.org a bit too much lately ?
Posted by gideon - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 16 hours, 10 minutes ago

If there’s one thing that the internet has given to the people, it’s the practical ability to easily post material anonymously. This is SUCH an important tool for keeping large groups honest without fear of immediate reprisal. There’s nothing cowardly about wanting to protect those you care about from fallout, especially when what you are doing IS in fact morally justifiable.
Posted by Gary - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 49 minutes ago

Knowing the person’s identity would be great for satisfying curiosity, but I don’t see how it would impact the validity of what he’s saying.
If someone is critical of say, Hillary Clinton, would you give the same weight if it came from Fox News as if it came from The New York Times ? Of course who the person is matters.
Posted by VennData - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 47 minutes ago

I’m the blogger, and so’s my wife.
Posted by aa - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 46 minutes ago

Posting anonymously is cowardly? Ever hear of the FEDERALIST PAPERS, “just a law student”. I didn’t know UOP had a law program.

Idiot.
Posted by anonymous - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 34 minutes ago

How can so many people say that the blogger’s identity would not affect the perception of his comments? Of course it would! It wouldn’t change the validity of the comments, but that’s not what’s important. It’s the perception of the comments that really matters, and knowing who the blogger is would certainly affect that. That doesn’t mean I think his identity should be revealed, just that it would certainly affect the comments.
Posted by Someone - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 22 minutes ago

#33, The law system relies so much on credibility, it sickens me. The whole bullshit about your word against mine is only true if both people are perceived to be at an equal level of credibility, then the words and facts alone are taken into consideration. If the critic poster wishes to remain anonymous, that is their right and choice. Their words should be taken as such by anyone reading them as well. However, any reader should also take into consideration what is at stake. Perhaps the poster is affiliated with Niro’s law firm. Who knows? Perhaps a personal safety is involved in choosing to remain anonymous. Remember that the “system” isn’t perfect, and there are a lot of cracks that we can ALL fall into.
Posted by Count0 - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 22 minutes ago

What this lawyer wants to do is punish this blogger for having the gaul to speak out against his cash cow. We are long past time to overhaul our intellectual property systems but the legal professions milk artists, authors, and inventors for every dime they can. do you ever actually wonder why the prols hate the legal profession? Look no further.
Posted by JP - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 21 minutes ago

I might think about it for $1M, but $10K? Don’t waste my time.
Posted by JonK - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 16 minutes ago

Posting anonymously is cowardly? Ever hear of the FEDERALIST PAPERS, “just a law student”. I didn’t know UOP had a law program.

Idiot.

THIS.
Posted by paranoid - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 8 minutes ago

This has no chance of ending well. Threaten an unstable man’s revenue stream and he will often threaten your life.

The only security of the future is anonymity.
Posted by Woadan - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 6 minutes ago

I used to work for Verizon. I didn’t make any of Verizon’s policies, though I was called on to enforce those policies. Even if I did not like them.

I often posted anonymously at BroadbandReports.com about those policies, and often stated why I thought they were stupid.

So while I worked for Verizon, I was not supportive of everything they did.

Who is to say that, even if Patent Troll works for one of the companies Mr. Niro and his supporters mention, that he is supportive of them?

This is just a fishing expedition whose purpose is not in any way altruistic.

The best defense of a critic or of criticisms is to prove the critic(s) wrong. Knowing who the critic is makes no difference in that case.

To put it more bluntly, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Sounds like mr. Niro needs a better fireman.
Posted by michael - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 15 hours, 1 minute ago

Thanks, Niro! Now I know about this great new blog!

P.S. Why doesn’t Niro sue Nero (cd burning software people) for taking his name and illegally bastardizing it?
Posted by Anonymous - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 14 hours, 41 minutes ago

I too shall invoke the Federalist Papers! Anonymous speech is the ultimate free speech. As long as there is no slander or libel Niro and his ilk are only looking to bully this author.

I say the source matters not - either his argument is compelling and worth reading and consideration or its not. The only reason to know the authors name is to present an ad hominem attack.
Posted by Pope Ratzo - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 14 hours, 26 minutes ago

This sounds like an opportunity for another “Spartacus Moment”

ready?

“I AM THE TROLL TRACKER”
Posted by popularityhurts - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 14 hours, 20 minutes ago

Should have just let bygones be bygones.
Now all the nutcase hackers, et all, know about this…
Blogging is like the media, so much crap, all much forgotten fast.
Another form of 15 minutes of fame…
Grow up.
Posted by Absurdist - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 13 hours, 50 minutes ago

Ah, how much I love Capitalism.
Clearly, this is a battle of money vs. money, regardless of which side you’re on.
Posted by 4hire-NOT - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 13 hours, 44 minutes ago

There are a few ways to track this IP suitable for lawsuit.
However, legality of some not good. 10K to have the computer person be called into court and get a bad karma rating amoung hackers? Sorry, 100K not fit bill.
Troll Tracker, you might want to mix up some IP history...along with some other things…
10K is a small amount to raise amoung hackers to protect Troll_Tracker...Then again, some would do it for free…
Posted by Bill Summer - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 12 hours, 42 minutes ago

No life can be barren which hears the whisper of the wind in the branches, or the voice of the sea as it breaks upon the shore; and no soul can lack happiness looking up to the midnight stars. Of course, neither happiness or the possession of a soul applies to such an bottom feeder as this.
Posted by TheRealTT - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 12 hours, 21 minutes ago

No, *I* am the troll tracker!
Posted by tigernacht - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 12 hours, 13 minutes ago

"Plus, he points out, knowing the identity and affiliations of the blogger likely would affect the way that readers perceive the Troll Tracker’s critique.”

Exactly. The entire point of being anonymous is to free people of their preconceptions and be able to take things at somewhat face value.
Posted by anon - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 12 hours, 10 minutes ago

just a another troll looking to throw dirt where it doesn’t belong
Posted by Nyuck3 - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 11 hours, 24 minutes ago

And quite clearly, the fact that Mr. Niro and his firm are being criticized colors what *he* says, too.
Posted by Rosie Bar - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 22 minutes ago

I think some people are blowing this stuff out of proportion. This man in the article is simply defending himself against allegations. I would want someone to have the respect to show themselves to me, if they raised such a claim as in the article.
Posted by Rosie Bar - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 17 minutes ago

Re:
“P.S. Why doesn’t Niro sue Nero (cd burning software people) for taking his name and illegally bastardizing it? :

That is just silly.
Posted by Dowdian - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 14 minutes ago

This entire comment trail centers around the Troll Tracker, which is exactly the intent of Mr. Niro’s ploy. The concentration needs to be on Niro. This is not an issue of “innocent until proven guilty”, rather, it’s an issue of “preponderance of evidence”. Where’s the counter-evidence, Mr. Niro?
Posted by Denver madding - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 11 minutes ago

Encyclopias often have wide ranging information about topics, as well as in depth study of years in which they were publshed.
Posted by Ron H - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 10 minutes ago

Johnny has a very large weed eater. Johny has a very large weed eater.
Posted by Pablo Homey - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 9 minutes ago

My name is Pablo, I have a big gorilla at home.
Posted by Dazed Bobnit - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 8 minutes ago

I’ve been dazed and confused for so very long.
Posted by Chonny Chan - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 6 minutes ago

Sometimes you have to reflect and feel if you are blogigng from the right place. Or if you are full of anger and resentment for no apparent reason.
Posted by Joan Guyver - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 5 minutes ago

I would like a “Bar” of candy. get it, bar! hahahahahah!
Posted by nobody special - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 8 hours, 50 minutes ago

Ok, so a lawyer has posted a bounty to find out who a blogger is that’s been critical of him.

Hmmm… Guess there isn’t anything legal he can do since he must not be able to meet the minimum requirements to do one of the special orders (ex parte? dunno, ianal) used to find out who someone is for further legal actions. So he resorts to setting a bounty to intimidate the critic. If he can’t get the info through the law, is the bounty even legal? On top of that, if by some chance he finds out, what’s he gonna do? Possibly send over some non-descript dudes with baseball bats?
Posted by That Guy - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 8 hours, 47 minutes ago

Funny how jobs affect the way people approach problems. Lawyers (at least a number of the ones here) act as if discrediting a person is the same as discrediting an idea. Just because a tactic has some utility in the courtroom doesn’t mean it’s actually useful for sorting good ideas from bad.
Posted by Strange Law Students - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 8 hours, 40 minutes ago

> It is perfectly respectable make a stand against something you feel is wrong, but at least own up to your opinion. Posting anonymously is cowardly and pathetic.

How do lawyers mentally deal with such incredible logical flaws in their OWN arguments?
This is the flaw of prejudicial language - ascribing moral character to an action.

>At least we know one thing, this poster isn’t one of the thousands of bright individuals with great ideas but a lack of capital to produce them himself.

Actually no you don’t know that. Nothing about the posters statements are necessarily exclusive to that group.

>But what do I know? I’m still just a law student.

Well you don’t know how to construct an argument....that’s for sure.
Posted by Lars - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 8 hours, 10 minutes ago

Man, there are too many idiots in the world. Strangely, they seem to congregate in Law, that bastion of free speech and liberty. Oh, it’s a lawyer who’s suing somebody for being insulting to him? what do you know..
Posted by Toby - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 7 hours, 25 minutes ago

#4 sums it up perfectly. Intellectual property is nothing more than a modern day (imaginary) junk bond.
Posted by Jen - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 4 hours, 33 minutes ago

Highly compensated turds.

Shakespeare was right.
Posted by Carlie J. Coats, Jr., Ph.D. - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 3 hours, 21 minutes ago

IANAL, but: MacIntyre vs. Ohio --
Anonymous free speech is a constitutional requirement. Niro is reprehensible--and as a
lawyer he damned well should know that!
Posted by Brian - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 1 hour, 57 minutes ago

I understand the concept of free speech, but why in this day and age when everything is so publically accessible, is it still considered right to chastise others on public forums, potentially harming them financially or otherwise? If the rights you choose to exercise influence the rights, prosperity, or general well being of another, then you should man up, and be prepared to back up those words in court. If damages have been found, then those damages should be justly compensated. If more people were called to the carpet for the words, ideas, and venom they so easily spew, then there would be much less lying and deception in the world.
Posted by Brian - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 1 hour, 51 minutes ago

As an after thought, maybe our nations credo should be changed to “Land of the free…home of the anonymous!”
Posted by Raj - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 1 hour, 44 minutes ago

Sandwich while writing a blog - $8
Bounty for some post written by someone - $10,000
Free publicity all over the internet - Priceless

There are somethings money can buy, for everything else, there is a stupid bounty!
Posted by Michael - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 58 minutes ago

Knowing the identity of the blogger will only help distracting readers from the MERITS of the arguments themselves.

And of course to aid the patent trolls in suing the blogger.

Everyone should know by now to take EVERYTHING you read on the Internet with a grain of salt - i.e. use your BRAIN when you read. I don’t see any problem with the blogger remaining anonymous.

Unless you present some proof that the content of the blog is WRONG (thus you can sue for libel), STFU.
Posted by Not someone - 3 months, 1 week, 2 days, 23 hours, 31 minutes ago

#33 - I love the irony that you posted that anonymously....
Posted by kefamous - 3 months, 1 week, 2 days, 22 hours, 46 minutes ago

Gimme $15k and i’ll tell you who it is! Hint: he DOESNT work at MICROSOFT or INTEL!!
Posted by Asitri - 3 months, 1 week, 2 days, 21 hours, 46 minutes ago

One is not required to market one’s invention after getting a patent so why does TT have an issue if another firm helps inventors profit from their work. If TT has a problem, maybe he should take it up with the legal system, not the lawyer defending it. One could argue that Niros’s firm and those like his provide a valuable service by providing motivation to innovators.
Posted by anonymousier than thou - 3 months, 1 week, 2 days, 21 hours, 32 minutes ago

To all you people arguing about “affect” vs. “effect”: I don’t give a damn about your “opinion” (though it may be less opinion than fact) unless you post your full name, address, and SSN. If you’re too ashamed to do that then it can only mean that you don’t stand behind the English language.
Posted by Name You - 3 months, 1 week, 2 days, 20 hours, 56 minutes ago

Troll Tracker = ~ Nicolas Bourbaki. You must want Proof, he sure has it!
Have Fun. :)
Posted by Mateo - 3 months, 1 week, 2 days, 19 hours, 28 minutes ago

LOL Nicolas Bourbaki. Nicolas Bourbaki is the collective pseudonym for a bunch of 20th-century mathematicians. Love It.

How Many Guesses does it take to get to the root of the Troll Tracker phenomenon… Mr. Niro may never know.
Posted by could_be_Ninja_Fett - 3 months, 1 week, 2 days, 18 hours, 44 minutes ago

I have to say that $5k or $10k is not a sizable amount for the price of knowing who an anonymous blogger is. It is interesting that Niro and clan are willing to use bounty hunting in place of their legal means of obtaining this information. What does this say about Niro and clan? What does it say about their abilities to litigate vs. hire out? Have they tried asking the blogger to reveal who they are or what evidence they might have to support the allegations made by the blogger in question? The fact that Niro and clan would rather let someone else do the digging might indicate the legitimacy of the allegations or the amount of truth therein. If there was no validity to the statement, it surely would have been ignored or ridiculed. And to put a monetary value on the knowledge of someone’s anonymous identity seems a bit cowardly itself. Mr. Niro should confront the blogger directly on the same turf and not make a circus out his firm.
Posted by Prospectus - 3 months, 1 week, 2 days, 12 hours, 32 minutes ago

Troll Tracker has gotten the best of this taunt so far. Yeah! Now if only Troll Tracker would know to use some basic PGP/GnuPG technology, to protect and verify his data if/when he gets hacked. Also, if he has to stop posting for a while and come up later, having a verified signed note before would help prove himself later. Read up on crypto, if you don’t know about some tricks of the trade and stuff. I read on your site that you are getting hacked…
Keep up the good work TT.
Posted by Anthony Bush - 3 months, 1 week, 1 day, 23 hours, 15 minutes ago

This is a total crock. He has no right to know anything at all about the identity of this blogger. Why not respond with a blistering attack on the merits of the arguments this unknown person is putting forth. This assinine comment about knowing the identity so you can determine if he is a serial infringer is lame and wack. This is free speech 101. Live with it!

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Internet Law