Patent Troll Claims Minecraft Infringement

First time accepted submitter ubrgeek writes "Popular game Minecraft has hit the big time: It's being sued for infringement by patent troll Uniloc who claims the game infringes a patent it holds on copy protection software. Developer Markus 'Notch' Persson sounds like he's up for the challenge: 'Unfortunately for them, they're suing us over a software patent. If needed, I will throw piles of money at making sure they don't get a cent.'"

Comments

I hope..

[JustNiz]

He pounds the troll into the ground then sues them for damages, defamation and costs.

Re:I hope..

[Cryacin]

Good to see that someone truly understands the prisoner's dillemma. On the whole in society, it's best to always choose what's best for everyone and not best for you, but if you come across a group like this, it makes perfect sense to single them out and punish them. I really wish more corporates, companies and people did this. It would really help to diminish the amount of successful selfish people in the world.

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

On the whole in society, it's best to always choose what's best for everyone and not best for you

Until you happen to be that individual. Then you'll probably begin to see just how important individual rights are.

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your delusion seems to be thinking patents and invention are related in any way except insofar as the former prevents the latter. Patents are a mechanism for stealing from people who actually make things and giving it to lawyers.

Re:I hope..

[Afecks]

Good to see that someone truly understands the prisoner's dillemma.

Life is not prisoner's dilemma. It's iterated prisoner's dilemma because people can actually build up reputations. It's been shown that the best stable strategy is tit-for-tat plus forgiveness.

Re:I hope..

[GumphMaster]

Whether you like it or not, patents have been around for over a couple hundred years. No matter how much moaning and groaning people do about patents (particularly software patents), they aren't going away anytime soon.

Nobody is being revisionist and claiming that patents have not existed for hundreds of years, although you'd be hard put to claim software patents have. Longevity, of itself, does not make them inherently valuable or suited to today. The "it's always been that way" perspective also fails to allow for the possibility that evolution of elements of patent law over that time has produced aspects that are neither valuable nor desirable. If people do not exercise a little of their right to "moaning and groaning" then the situation absolutely will not change in their interest, only those of others. If you do not wish to moan, fine, but do not expect everyone else to accept your fatalist position.

Lawyers get paid the big bucks when somebody tries to fight a losing battle.

In any battle one side will be fighting the losing battle, ergo the lawyers always get paid the big bucks. The even get paid when people opt not to fight the battle because then the victims has to acquiesce to whatever is demanded of them by the lawyers.

Re:I hope..

[Lisias]

You see, large corporations with deep pockets are easier: all you have to do is to make sure it's cheaper for them to pay than to sue. They *always* go for the cheap solution.

(one of them hired you, didn't? - ok, bad joke. but you asked for it!)

Little enterprises, when facing the financial death, can choose to bite back. They're dead anyway, they can afford to try their luck on a trial. It appears that 50 on every 75 ones that are sued by Uniloc choose that path.

Uniloc has sued 73 companies over violating its patent. 25 of those companies have settled according to Uniloc. [7]
Uniloc sued Microsoft in 2003 for violating its patent relating to technology designed to deter software piracy. In 2006, US District Judge William Smith ruled in favour of Microsoft, but an appeals court overturned his decision, saying there was a "genuine issue of material fact" and that he should not have ruled on the case without hearing from a jury.[8] On April 8, 2009 a Rhode Island jury found Microsoft had violated the patent and told Microsoft to pay Uniloc $388 million in damages.[9] After this success, Uniloc filed new patent infringement suits against Sony America, McAfee, Activision, Quark, Borland Softward and Aspyr Media.[10]

The decision against Microsoft was subsequently overturned on September 29, 2009 when Judge Smith "vacated" the jury's verdict and ruled in favour of Microsoft again, saying the jury "lacked a grasp of the issues before it and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis".[11] Uniloc appealed the judge's decision, alleging bias and in 2011 the guilty verdict was reinstated against Microsoft. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that instead of using the usual "25 per cent rule", the damage awards for infringement would need to be recalculated.[12]

On July 20, 2012, Uniloc filed a lawsuit against Mojang, citing the Minecraft Pocket Edition, incorrectly called "Mindcraft" within the lawsuit documents, as an infringement upon patents that give Uniloc exclusive rights to license checks on Android cellular phones.[13] The same lawsuit was also filed against Electronic Arts, citing Bejewelled2 as an infringement upon their patents on Android devices.[14]

Source

Re:I hope..

[Genda]

I can't even begin to tell how many ways this comment is a brain fart, but here are some of the high points;

1. Get your facts straight, the oldest U.S. patent is from 1790, but that only because of the age of the U.S. central government. The oldest patent in North America goes back to 1641 and there are Greek writings of registered disclosure of invention going back to about 500 B.C., so yes, patents have been here for a wee bit.

2. Nobody said get rid of patents. At least in this culture, the original purpose of patents was to spur invention by protecting an inventors rights to his own creation for some fair period of time, allowing to benefit from his creativity and productivity. These laws were instrumental to the explosion of ideas and technologies that made the United States an industrial and economic force in the 19th century.

3. Since then, the patent has been hijacked to build ever larger and higher fortifications from which to control greater bodies of IP, and the free flow of ideas and invention. Existing patent law is antithetical to its original purpose and is becoming an increasing impediment to invention, innovation and technological advance.

4. Therefore, when extremely bright, articulate and educated people discuss the dilemmas facing society and speculate on possible solutions that address the needs and wants of corporate America vs. the needs and wants of the human race, you might want to refrain from painting everyone with the idiot brush. The only one who actually ends up looking stupid is the guy holding the brush.

5. Microsoft paying the patent trolls with what amounts to folding money for Bill Gates, functions out of simple expedience, its easier feeding the trolls than spending ten times as much on the court costs. The trolls only ask for what they know they can get way with... think of mosquitoes.

6. Minecraft may or may not have a superb chance of wining their case, the point here is that they will not be bullied or threatened by a blood sucking parasite, and I for one hope the troll get's it head stomp.

I don't know if you get any of this, it may be beyond you. There is a time when the right thing transcends the easy thing, I applaud the makers of Minecraft for doing the right thing, and I would love to see permanent changes written to the body of patent law to remove the growing flood of idiot patents plaguing society.

Re:I hope..

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

Sticks and stones have been existing for even longer. Whether you like it or not! So let sticks and stones decide!

Re:I hope..

[samkass]

2. This isn't quite right. The primary purpose of patents is to encourage the publication of inventions and sharing of ideas. Without them, the profit motive would encourage trade secrets and hoarding of information and techniques. Say what you will about patents, obviousness, and longevity of protections, but they have succeeded brilliantly at getting everyone publishing everything in extensive detail.

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of idiots on slashdot. Whether you like it or not, patents have been around for over a couple hundred years.

Please show me what software patent, the subject of discourse here, was filed even 100 years ago, let alone 200? Yes, physical patents have been around for a good bit of time, and if software patents were treated in the same fashion this wouldn't even be a fucking debate.

Re:I hope..

[hairyfeet]

The problem with that suggestion is this: Depending on the company even if you win...you'll lose.

I had a friend that was running a little ISP that was basically railroaded by one of the bigger carriers. It was obviously an antitrust slam dunk, not to mention they had ignored the contracts they had signed as well as making sure nobody else would deal with his little company. So why isn't my friend sitting on a beach enjoying his victory? Because his lawyer said "Oh there isn't a doubt in my mind you'll win, none at all, but it'll cost you a good million and a half and 10 years of your life to get to the end" so needless to say since my friend didn't have a million and a half nor 10 years of his life he wished to through away in court he walked away.

Look at how long it took to finally end the SCO mess, and that case was so damned obvious Ray Charles could have seen that SCO was full of shit. The reason that many settle is that unless you have nothing better to do with years of your life, not to mention great piles of money to piss away, its simply smarter to make it go away.

Think about it, this guy is just a little developer....how many more games is he NOT gonna put out and NOT gonna get the money from, because he's too tied up in court bullshit to be working on games? Now do i think that is right? Fuck no, I think the system stinks. But what the system IS and what it OUGHT to be are sadly two different things and as it is this guy will in all likelihood lose a ton of money he'll never see again even if he wins. Lets face it friend, if they lose they'll just fold and start up a new firm doing the same shit tomorrow while this guy won't see a cent.

Re:I hope..

[Megane]

And if that doesn't work, he can build a house and stay in it until sunrise.

Re:I hope..

[StillAnonymous]

I disagree due to the fact that people can reverse engineer almost anything, making most trade secrets useless. If someone figures out your trade secret, you're hooped, that's all. If you have a patent though, even if someone else doesn't know about it and comes up with their implementation on their own, you still get to sue them. The patent lottery continues.

Have you read a recent patent? It's a joke. Deliberately unreadably-lawyeresque writing style, extremely vague so that they can sue anybody who implements anything even remotely similar (ie. patenting an idea, which is something you're specifically NOT supposed to be able to do), and becoming frequently more and more obvious within the realm the cover. Slip your patent in, then sue anybody who becomes profitable using a similar idea in a product. If you're lucky, they'll setting for millions and you won't even have to go to court.

Fuck this broken system. It's been gamed to death by filthy, parasitic scum. I seriously hope these patent trolls get crushed hard. I doubt it though. The system is so bought off and corrupt, real justice is as rare as rocking-horse shit.

Re:I hope..

[Riceballsan]

Right, they now we have a huge library of ideas, some of them to vague to make anything without using, yet all of them are in place indefinently and requesting rediculous amounts of money. Having information out there that no one can actually use, is a bit like a universal health care system that is automatically void if you get sick in any way. Yes we have the information... we just aren't allowed to use it.

Re:I hope..

[SeaFox]

He pounds the troll into the ground then sues them for damages, defamation and costs.

That will require an iron pickaxe and plenty of pork chops for energy, unless he wants to spend all year swinging his fists and barely making a dent.

Re:I hope..

[bky1701]

"What a bunch of idiots on slashdot. Whether you like it or not, patents have been around for over a couple hundred years."

I can think of at least two other systems of claiming things as property when they obviously were not that existed for hundreds of years. Then again, were you alive about 200 or 500 years ago, why do I suspect you'd be for those, too.

Re:I hope..

[Lisias]

I disagree due to the fact that people can reverse engineer almost anything, making most trade secrets useless.

And I disagree again due the fact that I can hack any hardware I own, but I can be (theoretically) prosecuted if I do reverse engineering on a software.

The patent trolling is even more evil than you paint, I can be prosecuted both ways.

Re:I hope..

[X0563511]

Corporations are not people, they are not individuals.

Sorry, thanks for playing.

Re:I hope..

[Swampash]

Uniloc is basically one guy, Ric Richardson, who is the epitome of the borderline-Aspergers nerd type idolised on Slashdot. He works out of a van because an office is too distracting.

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/business-it/aussie-inventor-settles-with-microsoft-in-patent-dispute-20120315-1v5zc.html

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/one-man-v-microsoft-a-day-in-the-dickmobile-another-day-in-court-for-aussie-inventor-20110106-19h25.html

He sued Microsoft for infringing this patent, and Microsoft lost to the tune of $388 million in damages.

Re:I hope..

[advocate_one]

3. Since then, the patent has been hijacked to build ever larger and higher fortifications from which to control greater bodies of IP, and the free flow of ideas and invention. Existing patent law is antithetical to its original purpose and is becoming an increasing impediment to invention, innovation and technological advance.

hijacked by lawyers who saw it as a boon-doggle way of keeping themselves in Maserati's... the language they're writing these sh1tty software patents in is designed so that only they can actually translate them... and the manner of processing software patents suits in court is deliberately designed to run up the billable hours... I would like to suggest that we bring back the requirement for a working model to be filed with the patent application... that would stop a lot of these crappy "idea" patents that are plaguing us these days.

Re:I hope..

[blind biker]

Life is not prisoner's dilemma. It's iterated prisoner's dilemma because people can actually build up reputations. It's been shown that the best stable strategy is tit-for-tat plus forgiveness.

Do you have a reference? I would be super-thankful.

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that assumes (1) each participant only has one player in the game (no teams) and (2) the game itself is the only communication channel (otherwise you can make a bot that identifies other instances of itself by a signature pattern of play which will beat tit-for-tat plus forgiveness). It's not clear those are valid abstractions for the real world.

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this why the fashion industry is thriving despite the fact that they have 0 patent protection?

Imagine if someone patented knitting? Practically everyone that wanted to make their own clothes would have to pay royalties!

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep believin', brother.

Meanwhile, a lot of men with guns disagree with you, and their opinions are the only ones that matter.

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are made up of people. People have rights. Those rights cannot be taken away (being inalienable and all). So, no, "corporations" don't have rights, but the people who own those corporations *do*. In a sense, those corporations sure are people. (And that's *all* corporations, not just those evil money-making enterprises.)

You want to rail against corporate abuse? Get rid of the lack of responsibilities. It's that, more than anything, that makes corporations misbehave. The problem isn't the "personhood" of the corporation, but the half-personhood.

Re:I hope..

[julesh]

And I disagree again due the fact that I can hack any hardware I own, but I can be (theoretically) prosecuted if I do reverse engineering on a software.

Come to the EU. We have legally-mandated rights to reverse engineer for the purpose of implementing interoperable systems.

Re:I hope..

[Kartu]

Software patents weren't around "for a couple hundred years". They are there for around 20 years, and they are in US, but not in EU.

Re:I hope..

[Kartu]

Google "graf chokolo" who was arrested in Germany for reverse engineering PS3 kernel.

Re:I hope..

[TechnoCore]

Life is not prisoner's dilemma. It's iterated prisoner's dilemma because people can actually build up reputations. It's been shown that the best stable strategy is tit-for-tat plus forgiveness.

Do you have a reference? I would be super-thankful.

I think he might be referring to this where Richard Dawkins explains it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48EWLj3gIJ8

Re:I hope..

[Lisias]

Unfortunately, I found such source:

But, just this week, Richardson was informed of the outcome of the appeal, which reinstated Microsoft's guilty verdict.

Source

Special attention for the "DickMobile". :-)

Re:I hope..

[Lisias]

How do you prevent being sued by the patent troll that claims ownership of the functionality?

Re:I hope..

[Talence]

You have a very valid argument, but there's one aspect that's missing: just like with old-fashioned racketeering, it's not a one-time expense: fold to one patent troll and you'll have to fold to all.

The SCO case was different: it was basically a Microsoft vs. Linux fight by proxy that SCO could not have funded on its own.

This patent troll is more likely to go for the low-hanging fruit, so it seems smarter for him to not make himself an attractive target.

Re:I hope..

[f3rret]

The problem with that suggestion is this: Depending on the company even if you win...you'll lose.

I had a friend that was running a little ISP that was basically railroaded by one of the bigger carriers. It was obviously an antitrust slam dunk, not to mention they had ignored the contracts they had signed as well as making sure nobody else would deal with his little company. So why isn't my friend sitting on a beach enjoying his victory? Because his lawyer said "Oh there isn't a doubt in my mind you'll win, none at all, but it'll cost you a good million and a half and 10 years of your life to get to the end" so needless to say since my friend didn't have a million and a half nor 10 years of his life he wished to through away in court he walked away.

Look at how long it took to finally end the SCO mess, and that case was so damned obvious Ray Charles could have seen that SCO was full of shit. The reason that many settle is that unless you have nothing better to do with years of your life, not to mention great piles of money to piss away, its simply smarter to make it go away.

  Think about it, this guy is just a little developer....how many more games is he NOT gonna put out and NOT gonna get the money from, because he's too tied up in court bullshit to be working on games? Now do i think that is right? Fuck no, I think the system stinks. But what the system IS and what it OUGHT to be are sadly two different things and as it is this guy will in all likelihood lose a ton of money he'll never see again even if he wins. Lets face it friend, if they lose they'll just fold and start up a new firm doing the same shit tomorrow while this guy won't see a cent.

Notch is NOT a little developer, Minecraft made a stupid amount of money and he is now hideously rich.

Re:I hope..

[tlambert]

Corporations are made up of people. People have rights. Those rights cannot be taken away (being inalienable and all).

Yeah, and Soylent Green is also people. What's your point, that corporations somehow don't pasteurize, homogenize, and add high fructose corn syrup to the collective identity of the people who make them up, thus denaturing their claim on a personhood?

Re:I hope..

[Antireal]

It refers to the work of evolutionary biologist John Maynard-Smith, who introduced Game Theory in evolutionary biology. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy [wikipedia.org]

Re:I hope..

[ivrogne]

2. Nobody said get rid of patents. At least in this culture, the original purpose of patents was to spur invention by protecting an inventors rights to his own creation for some fair period of time, allowing to benefit from his creativity and productivity. These laws were instrumental to the explosion of ideas and technologies that made the United States an industrial and economic force in the 19th century.

Has this link ever been seriously researched? What is the evidence?

Re:I hope..

[mcgrew]

The only one whose rights have been violated is the game developer. The troll is the infringer.

Re:I hope..

[History's Coming To]

I got the impression that this is exactly what Notch is threatening to do to them - raise as much money as possible (and I have a feeling he could raise a fair bit, plus some sympathetic pro bono in exchange for some very good publicity), and then play them at their own game. Threatening one person with bankruptcy when that person has the talent and reputation to rebuild quickly and has the resources to do the same to you if he wins puts a slightly different slant on things, when your whole company is threatened by your "victim" it changes the balance somewhat.

Re:I hope..

[Admiral Burrito]

You have a very valid argument, but there's one aspect that's missing: just like with old-fashioned racketeering, it's not a one-time expense: fold to one patent troll and you'll have to fold to all.

It's much worse than that. Defeating a patent troll doesn't create any sort of immunity against others. Even doing what you are ostensibly supposed to do - license every patent you need to - is no guarantee that someone else won't come along with another patent and shut you down.

Software patents are thousands of swords of Damocles hanging over the heads of every software developer. The idea that this somehow encourages innovation is complete and utter bullshit, shovelled by those who own the swords.

Re:I hope..

[Rockoon]

I disagree due to the fact that people can reverse engineer almost anything

Not true. It is not possible to reverse engineer anything that you do not have access to.

Read the post of the person you replied to again. Especially when he mentions TRADE SECRETS, a subject you have conveniently and completely ignored. The only reason that you could ignore this is because you are either phenomenally ignorant or phenomenally dishonest.

Re:I hope..

[BeanThere]

Whether you like it or not, patents have been around for over a couple hundred years

Your logical fallacy is ... argumentum ad antiquitatem .

Re:I hope..

[BeanThere]

2. Nobody said get rid of patents.

Actually, I do think we should get rid of patents. They are immoral.

Re:I hope..

[oakgrove]

The case for the most part at least until trial can be put on auto-pilot with the occasional appearance here and there. The issue really is having to deal with your own attorneys getting them all the information they need, etc. It can be time consuming.

Re:I hope..

[Surt]

Actually, that doesn't change whether or not on the whole it is better for everyone to do the thing that is best for the group. In fact, it's kind of the whole point.

Re:I hope..

[PhrstBrn]

Put your Minecraft fanboyism aside, Mojang isn't even at 100m USD in revenue yet. The guy himself may be 'hideously rich' but the company isn't some juggernaut.

They definitely have over 100 million in revenue now. Minecraft has built 80 million in sales since March

The XBox 360 version came out in May, and has sold over 3 million units. The Xbox 360 version costs $20 USD (1600 MS Points). Simple arithmetic gives me $60 million in XBLA sales. Mojang gets at least 1/3rd of that, which is enough too push them over the $100 million mark.

Re:I hope..

[Teancum]

2. This isn't quite right. The primary purpose of patents is to encourage the publication of inventions and sharing of ideas. Without them, the profit motive would encourage trade secrets and hoarding of information and techniques. Say what you will about patents, obviousness, and longevity of protections, but they have succeeded brilliantly at getting everyone publishing everything in extensive detail.

If that is the goal of patents, it has become an utterly failed goal and the role of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office certainly has not encouraged any actual documentation of the devices or concepts themselves. Sadly, I've read enough patent applications to realize that there is no possible way to glean much of any information at all from those documents in terms of being able to actually build the devices or concepts being described in them. Those applications are so full of legal descriptions that gleaning any technical data on how to do something simply can't be done.

I'll also note that if patents were so excellent as a means to share and distribute information about technical and engineering concepts, most engineers would have a bookshelf and likely even a full library of patent applications (especially expired patents) for them to review and to get ideas from. Instead, most engineers are explicitly encouraged to never read patent applications except in a narrow scope to help out with the legal defense of a company once they have been sued or are supposed to be giving expert legal testimony on the content of the patent. The only patent related items that you will ever see in an engineering office may be some plaques honoring employees who have been granted patents, but you would typically see lawyers who see any other patent applications or grants that belong to other companies taking those materials and throwing them into the shredder or burning them with likely a long talk to any engineer who is caught with them in a joint conference with a human resources exec, the immediate supervisor, and a lawyer along with some sort of form where that employee would have a long and embarrassing "lecture" (it wouldn't even be a conversation) and they would need to sign some paper as a condition of employment to never look at another patent application without direct approval of their supervisor.

I wish patents would work as you claim. It is a noble thought and if patents actually functioned as you claim the world would be a much better place. Sadly, they fail at the thought. The details about how to do what they claim to do is almost never there. If we had to re-create 21st century American technology out of the data base that is the USPTO patent applications, we'd still be stuck trying to figure out how to chop down a tree much less being able to build a fire or even building any of the tools that make America work today.

If you want to share information about technology, try a textbook or some technical manual. They are embarrassingly better at sharing information about technology than any patent ever could think about, and would tell a would-be engineer how to actually accomplish the task rather than the legalese which is a patent application. That by law a patent application is supposed to provide the information is irrelevant that it actually does what it claims to do.

Re:I hope..

[ultranova]

Corporations are made up of people.

No, they aren't. Corporations are legal constructs made of legal fiction. They may or may not have legal relationships - such as ownership or employment - to people, but they are not made of people.

People have rights. Those rights cannot be taken away (being inalienable and all). So, no, "corporations" don't have rights, but the people who own those corporations *do*.

And nobody's suggested taking their rights away. But tell me: if I draw a cartoon, do the characters in that cartoon have legal rights? Do I get in trouble if I draw a piano falling on them? No? Then why should any other fictitious construct - such as a corporation - have them?

In a sense, those corporations sure are people.

By your logic, Pythagora's Theorem is a person.

You want to rail against corporate abuse? Get rid of the lack of responsibilities. It's that, more than anything, that makes corporations misbehave. The problem isn't the "personhood" of the corporation, but the half-personhood.

So how do you propose throwing a corporation behind bars? The worst you can do to a corporation is give it a (usually ridiculously small) fine, and even then we get a chorus of people bitterly explaining how it'll simply pass it on to the customers (not that that's relevant for a patent troll or other nonproductive parasites).

A fictitious entity cannot be held responsible for anything because it does not exist, thus it shouldn't have rights either.

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

They can still sue you of course, but they'll probably lose and have to pay your costs, which makes it much less likely.

Any pure software patent is expressly prohibited by article 52 of the European Software Convention; that doesn't mean patents that include software are invalid, but if the patent is *only* for software then it is. The fact that the software is running on a particular hardware platform means nothing as far as the law is concerned.

The only way they could attack you is on copyright grounds; as long as you've only copied the functionality and not the program code itself (ie, no decompiling or disassembling of the executables) then they have no grounds under which to attack you. If you've documented your reverse engineering well enough, then it's an easy case to win.

The important thing to remember here is that in most of Europe, the loser in a clear cut civil suit has to pay the costs of the prevailing party, which makes abuse of the system much more difficult.

Re:I hope..

[hairyfeet]

You have to be constantly dealing with your lawyer, helping him get information he needs for your case, then there are the hearings, some you can skip, some you can't, and then add the stress in on top because this will be constantly brought to your attention over and over?

Yeah...I hope Notch wasn't planning to do anything with his life for the next 2 to 3 years, because until this is over he's gonna be tied up. Now considering how much his last game made if his next game would have even made a third of that (which would be reasonable, as many who bought Craft would be likely to buy his next product if for nothing else the name) the troll will have given him an opportunity cost of $30 million plus which he'll not see back, plus 3 years of his life which again nobody can give you back.

Hell of a lot of cost you won't be getting back huh? especially when defeating one troll doesn't give you any immunity from others. Personally I think the whole system stinks and needs reform, but that won't help Notch who has to deal with the system as is.

Re:I hope..

[HiThere]

I'm conflicted. On the one hand I *really* want software patents to be invalidated. On the other hand, I don't like copy-protection schemes (well, not most that I've ever encountered).

On the whole, I hope that software patents get invalidated. (Fat chance!) And that the patent troll not only loses, but has to pay not only court costs, but also the defendants legal fees. Plus a punishment fine. But making copy protection more difficult or more dangerous wouldn't be a total loss.

Re:I hope..

[HiThere]

That only works if he can get a judgment against not only the company, but also the principle stockholders (if it has any) and the top management. Otherwise the safe parties can abscond with the money and start a new company, that the old company folds may not be significant if, say, the patents were already owed to a shadow company, and so can't be considered assets of the patent troll.

But I can hope that software patents will get ruled invalid, or illegal, or some such. It's the next best thing to all patents being ruled illegal.

Re:I hope..

[HiThere]

That is claimed to be the primary purpose. Either the claim is a lie, or the patent system is so broken that it should be totally repealed. I suspect the claim is a lie, because otherwise it would not have been maintained in the broken condition since at least the invention of the telephone.

Re:I hope..

[RobertLTux]

i don't think there are any signed memos or the like but there is a lot of "Connect the Dots" type stuff in the Groklaw archives.

Re:I hope..

[History's Coming To]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of patents, they just need to be more tightly defined. If somebody actually copies my code I want to have some legal redress (although I'll admit you could use copyright laws instead). But I agree that the patenting of an eventual outcome of the code is ridiculous. If somebody wants to recreate my code from the ground up, or find a different (hell, maybe even better) way to reach the same result then good for them.

Re:I hope..

[Schmorgluck]

Now if only the USA had a Loser Pays system like just about every other country in the world. Aside from the patent system, the American rule is what enables patent trolls.

Re:I hope..

[Rhalin]

Castelfranchi & Falcone ( http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Theory-Socio-Cognitive-Computational-Technology/dp/0470028750 ) have a nice overview explaining how and why even the iterated prisoner's dillema fails to explain any real-world human behavior. They provide a nice set of additional citations to go look at as well

Re:I hope..

[hairyfeet]

After PJ said Psystar was a secret plot by MSFT to destroy the GPL? Yeah I'd have serious problems trusting anything on Groklaw without actual proof. I think the whole SCO case drove PJ totally batshit myself, they say that can happen when you start messing with conspiracy theories in that you start seeing them everywhere.

But don't take my word for it, go to Groklaw and look up the Psystar case, you'll find PJ's thought on the subject soon enough, and since PJ was Groklaw for the longest I'd have a hard time taking anything from there seriously without actual documents or some other physical proof to back up the statements.

After all I could set up a website and claim that Apple has secretly cloned Jobs like the boys of Brazil and are just waiting for them to mature so they can come up with fantastic new products, but that don't make it so.

Re:I hope..

[structural_biologist]

William Press and Freeman Dyson recently published a very interesting paper showing that the optimal IPD strategy depends on whether your opponent is mindlessly following a particular algorithm or is actually sentient. In particular, if you who can figure out your opponent's algorithm, you can then game the opponent's algorithm for your benefit. You may find reading the paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/26/10409) and the accompanying commentary by Stewart and Plotkin (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/26/10134) to be useful.

Re:I hope..

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

The problem is that, if a corporation does not obey the laws of the land, there is no convenient way of giving the corporation a "Time Out to think about what they have done." People are easy to train that way.

If companies were delisted people would be unable to buy and sell shares and therefor be stuck with the bad shares. The company then has to serve time by donating all profits for the next 5 years to "The public good". Now we have a system of crime and punishment that can deal with corporations in a way that corporations can understand. Nobody loses their job as the corporation can continue operating.

People would only invest in ethical companies on the grounds that unethical ones will not turn a profit.

Re:I hope..

[Theaetetus]

2. This isn't quite right. The primary purpose of patents is to encourage the publication of inventions and sharing of ideas. Without them, the profit motive would encourage trade secrets and hoarding of information and techniques. Say what you will about patents, obviousness, and longevity of protections, but they have succeeded brilliantly at getting everyone publishing everything in extensive detail.

If that is the goal of patents, it has become an utterly failed goal and the role of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office certainly has not encouraged any actual documentation of the devices or concepts themselves. Sadly, I've read enough patent applications to realize that there is no possible way to glean much of any information at all from those documents in terms of being able to actually build the devices or concepts being described in them. Those applications are so full of legal descriptions that gleaning any technical data on how to do something simply can't be done.

I'll also note that if patents were so excellent as a means to share and distribute information about technical and engineering concepts, most engineers would have a bookshelf and likely even a full library of patent applications (especially expired patents) for them to review and to get ideas from. Instead, most engineers are explicitly encouraged to never read patent applications except in a narrow scope to help out with the legal defense of a company once they have been sued or are supposed to be giving expert legal testimony on the content of the patent. The only patent related items that you will ever see in an engineering office may be some plaques honoring employees who have been granted patents, but you would typically see lawyers who see any other patent applications or grants that belong to other companies taking those materials and throwing them into the shredder or burning them with likely a long talk to any engineer who is caught with them in a joint conference with a human resources exec, the immediate supervisor, and a lawyer along with some sort of form where that employee would have a long and embarrassing "lecture" (it wouldn't even be a conversation) and they would need to sign some paper as a condition of employment to never look at another patent application without direct approval of their supervisor.

You're reading the grandparent post wrong, as well as misunderstanding the point of the Patent Act. As noted above, patents encourage publication of inventions... As in, patents encourage publication elsewhere, such as functional specs, white papers, theses, etc. The documents that would otherwise be kept as trade secrets. It's not that the patent is meant to be the sole library, but that the patent allows the inventor to publish and show the world how the invention works in other documents and at trade shows, without losing their rights.

As you note:

If you want to share information about technology, try a textbook or some technical manual.

And patents encourage publication of those textbooks and manuals.

Re:I hope..

[jo42]

Corporations are people hiding behind a legal abstraction that shields their activities from legal responsibility for their actions.

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

I have guns, too. So long as they don't point theirs at me, I don't point mine at them.

Right on! Captain Internet Hardass!

Re:I hope..

[Teancum]

You're reading the grandparent post wrong, as well as misunderstanding the point of the Patent Act. As noted above, patents encourage publication of inventions... As in, patents encourage publication elsewhere, such as functional specs, white papers, theses, etc. The documents that would otherwise be kept as trade secrets. It's not that the patent is meant to be the sole library, but that the patent allows the inventor to publish and show the world how the invention works in other documents and at trade shows, without losing their rights.

As you note:

If you want to share information about technology, try a textbook or some technical manual.

And patents encourage publication of those textbooks and manuals.

If the point of sharing the information isn't in the patent application, what is the point? The issue is that you have fully disclosed all of the information about how to make the device through the patent application in exchange for getting the monopoly to use the idea exclusively. If the information isn't being disclosed or never gets disclosed (such as why this particular Uniloc patent is useful in any way) then the information doesn't get shared.

I would argue the opposite to any sort of encouragement to independent publication as well. My point is also that those other approaches to publication would be used regardless of the patent status or any hope of an exclusive use of the idea. You certainly aren't making your point about the usefulness of the patent process itself or why it should be used instead of publishing the idea in an industry trade magazine or journal. For that matter, it doesn't even explain why trade secrets should be shared at all.

Unless such external publication is explicitly required by the patent process, the entire rationale you are giving here is a bunch of meaningless BS.

Re:I hope..

[Theaetetus]

If the point of sharing the information isn't in the patent application, what is the point?

Because if you don't have a patent, and you share the information in a white paper, thesis, or functional spec, you have no trade secret protection. It's public, forever, and so if you have any competitors, you better hope that you didn't have any value in keeping them from copying your system.

I would argue the opposite to any sort of encouragement to independent publication as well. My point is also that those other approaches to publication would be used regardless of the patent status or any hope of an exclusive use of the idea.

Okay, do you have any evidence for that?

You certainly aren't making your point about the usefulness of the patent process itself or why it should be used instead of publishing the idea in an industry trade magazine or journal.

Again, I think you misunderstand. The idea is that these are in addition to, not instead of.

For that matter, it doesn't even explain why trade secrets should be shared at all.

Because society benefits from fewer trade secrets and more public domain knowledge. It's odd that someone is arguing against patents, but also for more trade secrets... unless they're really in favor of more secrecy.

Unless such external publication is explicitly required by the patent process, the entire rationale you are giving here is a bunch of meaningless BS.

In a way, it is. 35 USC 112 requires that the patent contain sufficient written description to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the patent. Hence why they contain flow charts and diagrams. One argument for invalidity is that the patent doesn't contain enough information... and one counter to that is having sufficient other disclosure (white papers, theses, functional specs) such that the "ordinary skill in the art" is pretty advanced. So, yes, if the patent doesn't include that description, then other published documents probably should.

Re:I hope..

[Teancum]

I'll also note that if any decent engineering manager ever caught an engineer reading a textbook or other publication that knowingly covered a patented process belonging to another company, that engineer would receive the same stern lecture I mentioned above about patent applications. If it continued, that engineer would be fired and those publications would also be shredded or burned as well to prevent other engineers from making the same mistake in that company.

The only possible exception would be if some engineering manager decided to explicitly license some patented process they discovered in some way (likely at some trade show or convention) and then they handed the documentation about the patented idea to one of their engineers after a consultation of the corporate legal department, and likely even some additional waiver forms that would need to be signed by that engineer before they even started to crack open the documentation in the first place. That engineer would also be under strict orders to not divulge anything about that patented idea to any of their co-workers.

If you know of companies who don't follow this kind of paranoia about patented ideas, you likely are looking at a company who is ripe for a lawsuit of the kind that Mojang was just slapped with. I'm simply saying that patents don't disseminate ideas about an industry or technology but rather clamp down on that dissemination and even prevent the spread of that information to people for whom it might even be useful.

Re:I hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

You act like that is hard. Don't hold the corporation itself responsible, hold the ones LEADING it responsible. When you stop trying to find the company 100 billion dollars and instead take it out of the CEO's paycheck, bonus, golden parachute etc... And throwing THEM behind bars and then what they don't cover is owed by the shareholders by percentage of stock they own. THEN you will have accountability.

The company does illegal stuff, lock their CEOs and board members who knowingly allowed it (Will willfully attempted to remain ignorant of such facts) behind bars for a LONG time (10+ years) and bankrupt THEM personally. Lets see how long the companies keep it up when the corporate shield instead turns into the corporate bulls-eye aimed at their head for any misdeed they do. The ones in power should be held to a tighter standard, not be given more free passes than normal people.

Re:I hope..

[metacell]

2. Nobody said get rid of patents. At least in this culture, the original purpose of patents was to spur invention by protecting an inventors rights to his own creation for some fair period of time, allowing to benefit from his creativity and productivity.

The original purpose of patents was to encourage the publication of inventions. People got a time-limited monopoly on an invention in return for filing the design with the patent office, where anyone could look at and learn from it, as opposed to the inventor keeping the design secret to protect it.

The idea that patents should reward the inventor for spending time and money on R&D is something which has become popular later.

Re:I hope..

[RobertLTux]

err you do know they have COURT DOCUMENTS (copies of the stuff filed with the court in the various cases).
like i said they have a bunch of Connect the Dots stuff not any actual court proof.

Re:I hope..

[X0563511]

Yea, in response to Lieutenant First Class InternetTheOtherGuysAreHardasses.

Re:I hope..

[Teancum]

I would argue the opposite to any sort of encouragement to independent publication as well. My point is also that those other approaches to publication would be used regardless of the patent status or any hope of an exclusive use of the idea.

Okay, do you have any evidence for that?

Absolutely I have evidence for that. The fact is that a great many patentable ideas are indeed published in "open sources" (various uses of that term including pure "public domain") where those ideas are freely shared with anybody who wants to use them. Operating systems like Linux, to give an example, depend upon patentable ideas to explicitly be shared without any kind of monopoly being granted or even explicit expectation of getting monetary compensation for the work they do, at least in the traditional sense of software or equipment manufacturing.

Trade journals of a great many professional journals also include "how to" tips and tricks including schematics, drawings, and other related technical information for things that in theory could be patented but simply aren't.

The fact that it is happening anyway in spite of the patent route happening certainly shows that patents are not necessary for useful ideas to be disseminated that will advance an industry. I'm even going so far to suggest that the patent system is indeed a brake upon that dissemination of information for most industries, and most especially the electronic and computer industries in particular.

Considering that for nearly the first 30-40 years of the computer industry software concepts simply couldn't be patented at all, that hardly stopped the development of innovative software ideas such as the development of real-time computer operating systems, time share terminals, compilers, and the development of thousands of computer programming languages. I would say the onus is on you to demonstrate how the progress of the computer industry has been improved in any way since software patents became widely used and I'd even go so far as to suggest that the exact opposite has happened.

As has been mentioned even earlier, the fashion industry doesn't have patents, and neither does the film industry with the exception of technical aspects like camera designs. If a filming technique could be patented or a performance style, you would see similar kinds of problems plaguing the film industry that current infects the software development industry right now and would be equally silly as well.

You certainly aren't making your point about the usefulness of the patent process itself or why it should be used instead of publishing the idea in an industry trade magazine or journal.

Again, I think you misunderstand. The idea is that these are in addition to, not instead of.

I'm simply stating for the record that it isn't happening for the most part, and that any such publication about patented ideas is in fact heavily discouraged. Certainly no sane engineering manager would let their employees read those magazines without knowingly paying licensing fees for those patents in the first place and likely would be very concerned even then.

For that matter, it doesn't even explain why trade secrets should be shared at all.

Because society benefits from fewer trade secrets and more public domain knowledge. It's odd that someone is arguing against patents, but also for more trade secrets... unless they're really in favor of more secrecy.

I'm arguing for more trade secrets precisely because the patent system is broken, and that even the act of disclosure can backfire where that broken system doesn't even recognize those trade journals as places for patent examiners to even check out as prior art.

Unless such external publication is explicitly required by the patent process, the entir

Re:I hope..

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Corporations are made up of people.

s/up of/from/ => Hey! It's just like Soylent Green!

Re:I hope..

[Krater76]

Put your Minecraft fanboyism aside, Mojang isn't even at 100m USD in revenue yet. The guy himself may be 'hideously rich' but the company isn't some juggernaut.

They definitely have over 100 million in revenue now. Minecraft has built 80 million in sales since March

The XBox 360 version came out in May, and has sold over 3 million units. The Xbox 360 version costs $20 USD (1600 MS Points). Simple arithmetic gives me $60 million in XBLA sales. Mojang gets at least 1/3rd of that, which is enough too push them over the $100 million mark.

Yeah, I wouldn't say 'hideously rich'. While Mojang's revenue is relatively high, their EBITDA is relatively low. I believe they are making a much higher margin on their pocket editions and XBox 360 version (linked article is before these) so that's good. If it was just Notch still working on these then I'd agree but he's got a fair-sized business running now with all the associated costs. Not to say he's poor, I think he's just in the 'extremely comfortable' zone right now.

Re:I hope..

[Krater76]

The trolls only ask for what they know they can get way with... think of mosquitoes.

That's not being very nice to mosquitoes. One is a blood sucking insect that carries disease and pestilence and is almost impossible to defend against - the other is a mosquito.

Re:I hope..

[hairyfeet]

They have court docs that prove MSFT bought some licenses...they have also bought licenses from Novell in the same time period and current buy plenty of liceneses from SUSE, last I checked to the tune of 400 million so far...and?

MSFT has always been a conservative CYA type of company, and it sure as hell would put egg on their face if SCO would have won and named them as an infringer, especially after all the money they had sunk into the BSA going after infringers. Just look at how quickly they released their Win 7 USB tool as GPL when they found out they had infringed GPL code, MSFT doesn't like to hear the word infringement anywhere near their corp.

Finally as we have seen time and time again with all the leaks you can't keep any kind of conspiracy like what PJ was selling secret inside a company that big, you just can't. There are too many ways for the data to get out, too many lower ranks with access, too easy for one PHB to hit "reply all" instead of reply.

Let me ask you this....do YOU believe that Psystar was a secret plot by MSFT to destroy the GPL? because the same kind of half assed "evidence' is what PJ used to make that claim so there is no real reason for you to accept her word on one and not the other. you have to look at the source when you are dealing with such things and with Psystar PJ made it clear she is a rabid FOSSie as I call them, one that believes in the "one true way" and all that don't follow the GPL are one of "them".

When you have an "us VS them" mindset frankly it isn't hard to see connections where none exist, after all that is what every conspiracy from the grassy knoll to the faked moon landings counts on, taking a bunch of random facts that don't really go together and as you put it "connect the dots"....even if there are no dots to connect.

Re:I hope..

[cduffy]

Do you have a citation that SCO was proxy for Microsoft or that Microsoft had funded SCO litigation?

Unless you believe Larry Goldfarb committed perjury, it's clear that Microsoft had a hand in arranging SCO's funding in a bigger way than merely buying licenses to patents SCO didn't own.

Re:I hope..

[Duggeek]

I don't often respond to AC's, but when I do, I prefer to usurp AC's point.

Fashion... that's a good idea. I like that.

No, really... it makes more sense than other allegories. Think about it, people buy clothes; some for function, some for style. People buy software; some for sheer functionality (Linux packages, some PC offerings) and others for more stylish flair. (most Mac software, also some PC offerings but Adobe comes to mind the most)

Every new season, it seems there's a new fashion. Designers and textile plants keep striving to stay on the cutting edge. Every so often, it seems that some software bundle is being upgraded. However, developers aren't always striving to stay ahead, but only to be different enough to keep from being sued. Starting to see the similarities now?

And by the by... clothing may not be patented, but zippers are... so are snaps... even cuff-links. Still, point taken. These patents do nothing to protect the design of clothes that feature them nor prevent others from innovating their own fasteners, they simply prevent others from manufacturing the exact-same fastener mechanism.

So, why would the software business model suffer if there were no patents? Frankly, I don't think it would because it--and every user bound by their efforts--suffers for it now. It would remove this bass-ackward economy of patent litigation and infringement maneuvering, a sub-economy that should (IMHO) be outlawed by the UN. Competition without the fear of patent mongers would foster innovation at a faster pace and drive the larger firms to keep up with the smaller, agile indie developers. They pound their files in an earnest display of defending their innovation, when the line between true innovation and simple tropes or conventions becomes increasingly thinner. In fashion, you can tell when it's a knock-off... so guess what? We can tell when an app is a knock-off of a more popular app, too! Ultimately, it comes down to the label; whether it's sewed into the hem or printed on the CD.

So, it begs the question of why this patent system still exists? It's easy, really. The largest developers and the largest stakeholders in tech are so afraid of having to rapidly react to competitors that they move their legal teams instead. They know a dedicated partnership or legal firm is going to move much faster than it would take to compete with actual innovation. They can fire off a C&D faster than a gold CD.

We hear this rallying cry from the behemoths, "too big to fail," when it should be, "too ponderously slow to compete." (Hello, Mr. Ballmer)

IANAL, but let the litigation fall back to where it belongs; contract law. Every EULA has a clause about reverse-engineering or hacking the software. If there's an infringement, then let it be covered by that clause. Let the so-called "patents" (e.g., a 'right-click' or context menu, a vertical scrollbar without calling it a 'vertical scrollbar', et al) be diminished to a more-fitting role; as fashions past.

The burden of proof with software should be a simple test: Is it ripping-off an original? True, that would have to be coined in legal terms that must take about five pages to be fully

Re:I hope..

[KingBenny]

what i don't get is how judges, who are supposed to be real smart people, making decisions that impact lives and families sometimes for generations without anyone to control or check their integrity, how these people, the cream of the elite of our intellectual society, nominated for life with little or no repercussion to any of their decisions (so they just have to be perfect supermen right, or something would be seriously crooked in society) , how these people keep going along with it, while claiming at the same time they don't have time and they are flooded with (what i like to call) real criminal cases. I really don't get that

Re:I hope..

[lsatenstein]

The troll lawsuit describes the same process as many vendors do and will be doing. UEFI for Windows 8 uses a certificate authority to validate that the software is not corrupted, and legal.

Ditto for many security softwares which follows very very closely the process described in the filed papers. The backup or authorization to function using pki and secure server would be illegal for Microsoft if this troll has a slightest chance of proving his method comes first.

Professor Bruce Schneier, my favorite encryptologist described similar methods in 1993. Just get a copy of his textbook.

Let's see them ...

[Spacejock]

... dig their way out of this one.

Sorry, but it had to be said.

Re:Let's see them ...

[Grayhand]

... dig their way out of this one. Sorry, but it had to be said.

With any luck the judge will award them with virtual coal. Lots of that in Minecraft.

Fuck Patent Law in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough of this crap. Patent and copyright trolling needs to end now!

Re:Fuck Patent Law in America

[jones_supa]

I agree, it's high time to start reworking this ridiculous system.

Re:Fuck Patent Law in America

[drkstr1]

Enough of this crap. Patent and copyright trolling needs to end now!

While not the most enlightening post, it is certainly not -1 Offtopic. Quoted to circumvent shitty mods.

Watch out Blizzard you're next

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

...applications for use on cellular phones and/or tablet devices that require communication with a server to perform a license check to prevent the unauthorized use of said application...

Sometimes Battle.net 2.0 is all about logging on to a server to play a singleplayer or LAN game.

Software patents are so dumb. Just because some idiot patents something obvious doesn't mean the rest of us should not be able to do the obvious thing. What if someone patented walking in a straight line? The rest of society would be relegated to drinking heavily, or inventing silly walks.

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to invent silly walks, you could get them from the ministry of silly walks.

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[JThundley]

Since when can you play a LAN game on Battle.net 2.0?

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[arth1]

What if someone patented walking in a straight line? The rest of society would be relegated to drinking heavily, or inventing silly walks.

Whatever gave you the idea that patent trolls were against people using their patent? They really want as many as possible to use it, and feel safe in using it. Then they can sue all the big pockets out of the blue. "Damages" (which they haven't had) is far more lucrative than negotiated royalties.

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[xyzzyman]

Fortunately I live on a spherical planet, so I have no need to walk in straight lines. Plus I have flat feet and a bad knee so I couldn't walk a "perfect" straight line if I wanted to.

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[Githaron]

I thought the Ministries were named the opposite of what they do.

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[ch0knuti]

Starcraft? Dosen't say lan game I think it means any mobile application that needs to log in. While Blizzard's games are not celluar phone or tablet based they do have an auction house app which would be infringing this. What suprises me most is how something like this was ever awarded. Isn't their an 'obvious' clause that invalidates patents? IMNAL

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[Genda]

Sorry... prior art... see the Larch

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[professionalfurryele]

If the patent office is overworked the solution is simple. No appeals process and a bias towards rejection. Stop this bullshit of putting in multiple claims some of which are obvious, one obvious claim means no patent, one claim with prior art means no patent. Stop this bullshit of poorly worded and vague patents. If within the first 30 minutes of getting your patent it isn't clear how to implement it, automatic rejection. Force the inclusion of pseudocode for software patents (or better yet just ban them), and the inclusion of schematics for everything else, and demands that it should be clear from those schematics how to actually build the device in question. Anyone submitting a claim to an invention with documented prior art should be fined heavily for wasting the offices time. Allow the extension of prior art to softer situations, so don't simply look at academic papers and other patents (although those should be used to determine if the submitter should be fined) but include any other reasonable source of prior art (blog postings which outline similar ideas, public speculation in the media).

Once it is clear that only geniune patents will be accepted the volume of patents submitted to the patent office will drop rapidly.

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[thexile]

here: http://www.battle4sc2.com/download-starfriend.php

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[wbr1]

Ministry of funny walks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[elfstone1555]

No appeals process and a bias towards rejection.

I have a friend who works in the patent office (not the software part) and he says his boss tells them to reject everything the first time then let the submitter come back and defend themselves before they make a final decisions. So I think (at least parts) of the patent office are already doing this (although maybe not the software division).

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[Theaetetus]

...applications for use on cellular phones and/or tablet devices that require communication with a server to perform a license check to prevent the unauthorized use of said application...

Sometimes Battle.net 2.0 is all about logging on to a server to play a singleplayer or LAN game.

The patent is narrower than that. You have to look at the claims, not just the abstract or the Slashdot summary.

Software patents are so dumb. Just because some idiot patents something obvious doesn't mean the rest of us should not be able to do the obvious thing. What if someone patented walking in a straight line? The rest of society would be relegated to drinking heavily, or inventing silly walks.

I think we can find prior art showing people walking in a straight line.

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Allow the extension of prior art to softer situations, so don't simply look at academic papers and other patents but include any other reasonable source of prior art (blog postings which outline similar ideas, public speculation in the media).

Not 100% sure, but I think that the "first to file" provisions, recently enacted, effectively limit those checks to patents and patent applications, thus leaving such determinations to the judicial system.

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[UnderCoverPenguin]

The floors of most buildings are actually flat. Warpage notwithstanding, the steel beams and lumber we build with are mostly straight lines.

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[xyzzyman]

Thanks for making me feel bad because you had to assume I wasn't homeless. :)

Re:Watch out Blizzard you're next

[ZmeiGorynych]

No, complex algoritms are still math - being able to patent math is just silly, as anyone is capable of rediscovering it. Copyright protection, yes, but if you have rediscovered the same algorithm independently why should you have to pay royalties to someone?

There is no such thing as 'really valuable software patents' - if you want to make money off your algorithms and are afraid of them being copied, sell them as a service or as encrypted binaries.

Not just Minecraft

[ildon]

They're also suing Square Enix, EA, and Gameloft (basically everyone).

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/365540/20120721/minecraft-notch-mojang-lawsuit-patent-troll-software.htm

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Ouchie]

Is it possible to use Class Action for defense?

It seems that some of their defendants could pound them into powder single handed but some of the smaller ones like Minecraft might benefit by pooling resources.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[ArchieBunker]

Honestly it would be cheaper to just put a hit on the guy doing all the lawsuits.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Lisias]

I'm currently unemployed.

Where I apply for the job? =P

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Ronin441]

But in the case where they're suing many different people, it might not be cheaper for any one party to pay for the hit.

What we need is a way to crowdfund assassination of patent trolls.

Hitstarter.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Anonymous Coward]

The silk road.

An acute understanding of preserving anonymity is required for this line of work. Assassins are paid handsomely but their work is extremely dangerous.

Also, ask yourself if you can cope morally with such an occupation long term. I know people with unethical occupations who were attracted by the high pay but later came to regret their choice for the toll such work takes on their souls.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Genda]

I'm think its time for game players everywhere to create inflammatory content of the officers of these patent trolling companies performing unnatural acts with the religious leaders of radical Muslim states. Provide addresses, place of employment, and a lot of derogatory uses of the prophet's name and likeness. Stir up a real hornets nest and then toss them into their respective yards. Play a game called "Spin the Fatwa". Let's invite these pigs to a luau as the guests of honor.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's not going to make it his occupation. Maybe it will be just... a one off job.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[bky1701]

Seems like they would have been better off just suing over Minecraft. Suing major multinational corporations has a much higher chance to get your entire case thrown out.

Then again, patent trolls are useless idiotic shells of humans. News at 11.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[6ULDV8]

No worry, he's unemployed. His CV will never make it past HR.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[X0563511]

I know you're joking, but one way to make certain the tolls learn...

Re:Not just Minecraft

[X0563511]

Wow. Trolls, even.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Tom]

Certainly. But once it gets traction, would YOU dare sue it?

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Tom]

Start a project on github, I'm in.

It really would be a worthwhile thing to have, even as a satire, to point out just how serious the problem is. And it could easily be expanded to cover politicians for whom we seem to get "agreement ratings" all the time, but never "hate metrics", which as any student of election theory knows are just as important.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Gordonjcp]

Most of the patent trolls are in the US, too far for the really capable Islamist fundies to travel for one job.

Why not just create inflammatory content saying that the patent trolls support same-sex marriage, abortion, evolution and the rights of women to do basically anything other than stay in the house with their heads covered extruding babies like a gumball machine, and let the Christians do the work?

Re:Not just Minecraft

[julesh]

Is it possible to use Class Action for defense?

Yes, or at least you can achieve something similar. It may or may not be possible in this case, but it is always worth putting an application to the judge of your case to see whether he thinks it would be beneficial. The relevant rule is this one:

20. (2) Defendants. Persons—as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem—may be joined in one action as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

(B) is clearly true. (A) may or may not be, depending how one interprets "series of transactions or occurrences".

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Lisias]

No reputable assassin got reputable with anonymity. That's why they use aliases! :-)

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Lisias]

Speaking frankly, I'm atheist - my soul is the last of my worries.

But if I'm wrong and I in fact have one, I'm think it's hard to believe it worth more than the welfare of so many people - what a selfish person I would be in this case.

I don't know if I have the guts to do it (and I'll probably have a better life if I ever come to know), but there're some people that I would kill for free if this could be done unchecked.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Lisias]

Or a hobby! =P

Re:Not just Minecraft

[snemarch]

As long as you only do hits on patent trolls, how exactly is it an unethical occupation?

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Rockoon]

Why not just create inflammatory content saying that the patent trolls support same-sex marriage, abortion, evolution and the rights of women to do basically anything other than stay in the house with their heads covered extruding babies like a gumball machine, and let the Christians do the work?

..because its dishonest?

At least with a hitman you must pay a price, a form of self-regulation that filters out willy-nilly attacks on the undeserving.

Why do you folks always reach for dishonesty? Seriously.. its possible to be both ruthless and honest at the same time. The sort of shadow integrity that this world used to have but now lacks because it was replaced by simple dishonest fuckery.. the very shit that defines patent trolling itself.

Re:Not just Minecraft

[WWWWolf]

Github is crowd funding now? Why did you tards mod this up to +5?

It's for the cover-up project! You need a Ruby on Rails software project to get donations these days. ...or maybe not RoR these days. Node.js, then. Gotta be trendy. Just make sure you add enough obscure dependencies that no one can be bothered to actually install and run your project. Then watch the money roll in!

Re:Not just Minecraft

[Surt]

Why tongue-in-cheek? May as well ask if it's unethical to kill Nazis.

Damn

[Anrego]

It's shitty that it happened, but it's awesome that they finally went after someone who has the metric ass-tonne of money and principles to not just pay them their extortion money.

I hope Notch gives it to them good.

I kinda wish there was a way to donate directly to this cause (beyond buying the game / recommending it to others .. which I've already done)..

Re:Damn

[Ouchie]

I bought two more copies of Minecraft just to fund their defense.

Re:Damn

[Riceballsan]

It isn't just that notch has a metric ass-tonne of money, compared to most of the targets he has sued, notch is probably one of the poorest. The real reason notch can fight, is that he isn't a public company. Most publicly traded companies would rather settle and get rid of the guy, than gamble in court, pay legal fees that outweigh the costs of the settlement and still have a risk of a stupid judge thinking it is a legitimate patent.

Re:Damn

[Black Parrot]

I hope Notch gives it to them good.

Then he can upgrade his nym to 'Shaft'.

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

And, of course, that notch is a very outspoken person who stands up for his beliefs. Also, he's a Pirate Party member.

Go notch.

Re:Damn

[rat7307]

Umm, he beat Microsoft in court for their XP activation methods to the tune of $300m+

Uniloc has had products for years, but I don't really understand how MC comes in to it as it doesn't care WHAT machine the game is on, only checks username/password when you log in to play Multiplayer..... if that's the part he's going after then we are all fucked.

Re:Damn

[Brannoncyll]

I hope Notch gives it to them good.

Then he can upgrade his nym to 'Shaft'.

Unless he settles, after which 'Quiver' would be more appropriate.

Authentication servers?

[MichaelSmith]

I wonder if this troll has gone after Novell, Sun, IBM and DEC, or if they focus on small companies without armies of lawyers.

Re:Authentication servers?

[Samantha Wright]

Miraculously, the patent was only filed in 2005. DEC was long gone by then. But apparently they're suing some other game companies too.

Re:Authentication servers?

[MichaelSmith]

Three of those companies have gone but their patents must date back to the 1980s at the very latest and somebody owns them for sure. I would love to see Uniloc take on IBM over the Rational license server.

Re:Authentication servers?

[Samantha Wright]

I concur. It must rain blood.

Re:Authentication servers?

[julesh]

I would love to see Uniloc take on IBM over the Rational license server.

Ah, but did you use it on a mobile device? Over the Internet? No? So clearly it can't be the same idea recycled, then, can it?

Re:Authentication servers?

[Lisias]

Uniloc is slowly escalating.

I'll be not surprised if it would do it some years (and victories) from now.

Re:Authentication servers?

[MichaelSmith]

I don't see how they can go after IBM with a patent from 2005. IBM haven't written anything since 1995.

Re:Authentication servers?

[Lisias]

As far as I know, it's enough that the product be in use on the market to be eligible for being sued...

Re:Authentication servers?

[Surt]

The product must be created post patent filing or the suit is sure to be both short and disastrous for the filer.

Re:Authentication servers?

[srmalloy]

I would love to see Uniloc take on IBM over the Rational license server.

Ah, but did you use it on a mobile device? Over the Internet? No? So clearly it can't be the same idea recycled, then, can it?

The problem is that the existence of a hardware-signature-based licensing system severely jacks up the bar for a patent application to meet the "non-obvious" part of the criteria for awarding a patent. Also, Windows XP, as part of its activation process, hashes ten components of your system and uses that, with a maximum deviation from the initial hardware profile, in combination with your product serial number to determine whether your copy of Windows is authorized to run. That was in 2001, four years before Uniloc got their patent. A signature based on your device's hardware? Check. Used to determine authorization of licensing? Check. Installed on laptops, clearly 'mobile devices'? Check. Prior art? Check.

Uniloc?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Are you sure it's not Unisys? I figured it was only a matter of time before they sued over the Minecraft Calculator.

Minetest FTW!

[VanessaE]

And this, folks is why I support open source solutions whenever possible, in this case, Minetest. It is similar to Minecraft (generally based on the same idea), but 100% open source. Coded by Perttu "celeron55" Ahola et.al. For more details, visit the main website: http://minetest.net/

(Disclaimer: I am a mod programmer and texture pack developer for the game)

Re:Minetest FTW!

[jones_supa]

A trend which I see these days in Slashdot is aggressive downmodding like here is happening with VanessaE.

I don't know if "Minetest" is any good, but I thought it would be interesting to talk about how introducing an open source implementation would affect the patent situation.

Re:Minetest FTW!

[spauldo]

Minetest's all right. I prefer Minecraft, but I played Minetest before buying Minecraft just to see if it was the kind of game I'd be interested in.

The design is pretty neat. The game engine is being stripped down to the basics, and everything else is being done in lua. This gives you a lot of control over the game - it's easy to play around with the lua code to change things. I'd never used lua before and was able to do some pretty cool stuff with minor edits.

That's a contrast with Minecraft, where mod developers have to decompile the java code and replace class files (or use an intermediate mod like Modloader to inject their code into them). Minecraft doesn't have a modding API yet, and I would be surprised if once it comes out (with 1.4, hopefully) it wouldn't still be necessary to replace core code for the heavy mods like Redpower. The main advantage Minecraft has is that it's more mature and has a much larger modding community, so you can get some really well-made mods that really enhance the game.

The cool thing about Notch is that he turns a blind eye toward the mod developers, who are essentially distributing modified versions of his class files, which is a clear cut copyright violation. Modders could change to using patches instead, but that would be a huge PITA.

Either way, Minetest can't be sued by this guy; it's for the PC, and this particular patent covers DRM on Android platforms. Minetest doesn't use any DRM at all.

Re:Minetest FTW!

[chilvence]

Yeah Yeah, Mario is the Greatest, there is only one Street Fighter, Quake pisses all over Unreal etc. Get over it.

Re:Minetest FTW!

[Eponymous Hero]

It's one thing to make a blatant clone of Minecraft using Notch's ideas and by the looks of things his textures.

so you're ok with that, i take it. i agree, it's not much different than car makers riffing on each other (prius vs insight is a recent example).

It's another thing to tut-tut-tut the guy you're plagiarising. If you're so clever, why don't you invent your own game and give that away for free.

maybe because someone else already did make their own game and gave it away free so now this person is free to make mods and textures for it. what is your point?

Flexera software might have something to say

[whoever57]

Why are none of the patents owned by Flexera software cited as prior art?

Unreal Tournament 1999 Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'm pretty sure that Unreal Tournament circa 1999 and many others trump this patent. (Internet Multiplayer game similar to many that were popular at the time).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament

Incredible that the patent office issues patents for things they must know are already done and out there and popular. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE LIABILITY FOR BAD PATENTS ISSUED?? If the patent office was liable for the bad patents it issues, you can be damn sure they would do their jobs properly.

Re:Unreal Tournament 1999 Prior art

[Sigma 7]

Unreal Tournament only used CD-based copy protection, which was removed in a patch. It didn't use a licence key as described in a patent, nor did it use server-side authentication.

It's better to say that Diablo II violated the patent. Although it didn't require contacting a server, it used this system if you wanted to play on Battle.net.

And even better is Ultima Online, which was released in 1997, and was an MMORPG.

Re:Unreal Tournament 1999 Prior art

[Genda]

There you go, a legal filing with an obviously bogus patent (a patent with obvious prior art, that can't stand up under reasonable examination) should disappear the patent, force the one filing the suit to cover all court and legal costs for both sides, and if any harm is done to the business sued, result in triple damages against the filing party.

Call the law T-RAID, T-RAID kills trolls dead!

Re:Unreal Tournament 1999 Prior art

[BanHammor]

UT99? Nah. UT03 may be a lot more likely.

Re:Unreal Tournament 1999 Prior art

[BeanThere]

Doesn't matter if there's prior art, this so-called "invention" is so 'f-cking obvious', it's not even an invention.

Re:Unreal Tournament 1999 Prior art

[Surt]

And probably most relevantly, none of those ran on mobile devices.

Re:Unreal Tournament 1999 Prior art

[Schmorgluck]

Which is irrelevant for the novelty of the invention. A mobile device is just another kind of computer, using a different kind of connection. It doesn't matter if the idea has only been implemented on laptops or desktops. Porting it to a mobile device doesn't make it novel.

Re:Unreal Tournament 1999 Prior art

[Surt]

That's your opinion, but unfortunately the patent office does not agree.

Open Source is not a guarantee you won't be sued

[Firethorn]

Heck, in some ways it makes it WORSE, because let's say that Notch wasn't such a nice guy and he decided that minetest somehow violated some of his copyright, trademark, or patent. YOU could find yourself named in the suit. In the case of commercial software, the seller of said software generally assumes the risk of such things. Meanwhile, in the case of open source software, companies have been known to sue users. Not particularly successfully, but even retaining a lawyer for such things is expensive, not to mention the time involved.

Honestly enough, it's one thing to be using an open source application as opposed to buying one from Microsoft, HP, or such. Notch? He's a single programmer looking to make a living. Why grudge him that?

Give congress a first hand look at the problem.

[D'Sphitz]

Someone should patent something ridiculous like "A method for indicating support of a proposal by using an input device to record a 'yea' or 'nay' vote." and then file suit against individual members of congress (in Tyler, TX of course). Maybe that would get their attention.

Re:Give congress a first hand look at the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should patent something ridiculous like "A method for indicating support of a proposal by using an input device to record a 'yea' or 'nay' vote." and then file suit against individual members of congress (in Tyler, TX of course). Maybe that would get their attention.

That will never get patented, it is way too obvious.

Someone should patent something ridiculous like "A method for indicating support of a proposal by using an input device to record a 'yea' or 'nay' vote over the internet." and then file suit against individual members of congress (in Tyler, TX of course). Maybe that would get their attention.

FTFY.

Re:Give congress a first hand look at the problem.

[quantumphaze]

Already patented, but:

Someone should patent something ridiculous like "A method for indicating support of a proposal by using an input device to record a 'yea' or 'nay' vote on a mobile device." and then file suit against individual members of congress (in Tyler, TX of course). Maybe that would get their attention.

This patent thing is easy.

Re:Give congress a first hand look at the problem.

[Oakey]

Ah but have you registered your patent for '...on a tablet' yet?

missing the point entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

If needed, I will throw piles of money at [lawyers] making sure they don't get a cent.

Completed that for you.

Re:missing the point entirely

[Black Parrot]

If needed, I will throw piles of money at [lawyers] making sure they don't get a cent.

Completed that for you.

The lawyers - on one side or another - are the ones who are going to win no matter how the court rules.

Patent reform...

[eWarz]

A few simple things would solve our patent system: 1) Require that any company SUING someone for patents actually MANUFACTURER the device/program directly themselves (thus eliminating patent/ip holding companies) 2) Require quadruple damages + legal fees if a company holding/suing for patent infringement loses. This will discourage companies such as apple from suing for billions of dollars and will encourage licensing deals. 3) Shorten patent validity times to 5 years. Patents should be the last thing you do during the development process. 4) Companies should be limited to no more than 10 patents a year. This would encourage quality over quantity. While this sounds crazy, companies would be more inclined to not push junk patents through the system. Notice i didn't say to eliminate software patents.

Re:Patent reform...

[Legion303]

5) Knife fights.

Re:Patent reform...

[deimtee]

Easiest patent reform :
1/ Accept the fee and approve all patents immediately they are submitted.
2/ Require all patent lawsuits to notify the patent office that the patent is being used in a suit, and the parties to the suit, before the suit commences,
3/ Patent office does an immediate evaluation of the validity of the patent with regard to obviousness, prior art etc.
4/ If patent is found invalid it is immediately canceled.
5/ Patent office provides to the patent holder a written report on the outcome of steps 3 and 4. The report possibly also goes to the potential defendent.
6/ Any lawsuit filed without the report from step 5 is immediately tossed out by the court.

Benefits:
Reduces workload on the PO by only examining patents when necessary.
Discourages baseless lawsuits by revoking invalid patents.
If you have a valid case, the report from the PO is powerful evidence in your favour.

Kill it with fire.

[Commontwist]

I'm waiting for some TV series or movie that use patent trolls as the vector for an evil alien race, who regenerate and can only be killed with fire, seeking to stall human progress.

Has someone already done so yet? Please?

More specifically

[Anonymous Coward]

in the initial round it is best to be the nice guy, after that just mirror what the other side has done to you. Of course this assumes a closed system with an unlimited number of interactions.

So in this case one party is being negative to another and has a reputation for always doing so. The appropriate thing for Notch to do is to be as ruthless as possible within legal restrictions. It is unlikely the patent troll will have a second round with you, and will never not take the negative option. Therefore it is best to take them for all they are worth, if you can.

Amazing how common sense and game theory comes to the same conclusions given the same input.

Re:More specifically

[citizenr]

as ruthless as possible within legal restrictions.

Why?
I am pretty sure hiring an assassin to infiltrate that shell corp, find out who is in charge and murder them would be a LOT cheaper and more effective than lawyers.

Re:More specifically

[__aaltlg1547]

in the initial round it is best to be the nice guy, after that just mirror what the other side has done to you. Of course this assumes a closed system with an unlimited number of interactions.

So in this case one party is being negative to another and has a reputation for always doing so. The appropriate thing for Notch to do is to be as ruthless as possible within legal restrictions. It is unlikely the patent troll will have a second round with you, and will never not take the negative option. Therefore it is best to take them for all they are worth, if you can.

Amazing how common sense and game theory comes to the same conclusions given the same input.

No, that's not common sense. Common sense directs people to do what seems best for them right now without consideration of what game they are playing. Common sense says settle. Game theory says settling is a suboptimal strategy in the game the patent troll is playing.

Re:More specifically

[Surt]

Hear hear! It's the lack of this kind of thinking that is eroding the civil in our civil society.

Re:More specifically

[Lisias]

You are seeing it in a very narrow view.

You don't have to win every battle to win the war. In fact this strategy tells that you can win a war without winning a single battle!

It's not the immediate result that matters, but the net result at the end of the game.

If you are in a game where reputation is a variable, and you always play nice at first round, other nice players will be nice too - confident of mutual profit.

If you are known to defect from the beginning, you will never have a single chance to earn more than the bare minimum after the first match. You will win EXACTLY ONE SINGLE TIME, and then will be restricted to minimum wage for the end of game.

However, this strategy is only viable if there're at least one more nice guy in the game.

Re:More specifically

[Toonol]

They'll win, but have a much lower score. If they change their strategy to be nice, they'll 'lose', but have net benefit.

Re:More specifically

[ultranova]

Amazing how common sense and game theory comes to the same conclusions given the same input.

It's indeed eerie. You'd almost think they were trying to model the same world.

Re:More specifically

[A. B3ttik]

HK-47: Affirmative, master... The human informed me that a competitor corporation was preparing to market a product that would ruin him personally. He was most agitated. He activated my assassination protocol and instructed me to kill all those responsible for the competing product. I proceeded to carry out my order. HK-47: My former master was unaware of this, but the competitor was in fact an arm of Systech Corporation, my master's own employer. It did not take long for my master to realize his mistake. By then, I had already terminated 104 corporate officers. HK-47: Observation: While it may have been unintentional, my master's wording of his orders left little room for me. Systech was responsible for the product, after all. I do not know why my master was so upset, really. He was an officer of Systech and a potential target, but I cannot terminate my own master. I would assume that being the sole officer remaining, he would surely be promoted. Instead, however, the human chose to go insane with rage and attack me.

Yey for Notch!

[echusarcana]

Markus Persson once again demonstrates why he's the coolest guy in the software industry.

Over copy protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope the judge laughs them out of court... Minecraft's copy protection is "Please don't copy our game." There is no actual copy protection used.

Re:Over copy protection?

[Sigma 7]

Where you log in? What do you think that's for, looks?

Of course it's for looks. Unplug network cable, try to login, get message about being unable to connect, then click Play Offline.

Re:Over copy protection?

[spauldo]

It gives your character a name. It's not actually required to play the game. From what I've heard, there's a way to do guest installs and install the game without a username - I'm not sure on that point, actually, since I bought a name.

It isn't technically required to play on servers (the Minecraft server distributed by Mojang has a setting to not check names, so it's up to the server operator), but the server keeps track of your stuff using your name, so if you want to come back to the server with all your stuff, you need one.

Re:Open Source is not a guarantee you won't be sue

[VanessaE]

I'm not a coder for the game at all - I just wrote a few mods and did some textures as an add-on. So obviously, I rather like the game. Not to mention, the game is free, so there's no DRM to sue over, and the primary author doesn't live anywhere near the US, let alone Texas.

Oh, and I am not a resident of Texas either, nor do I sell anything there or I do any kind of business there, deliberately or not, under any label or name having anything whatsoever to do with any block-type sandbox game.

Good luck suing either of us.

As for why grudge Notch? Simple: I don't like Java (in fact I hate it), my choice of game is open source, and Notch made it plainly clear that he's no longer just "making a living". I don't need any more than that.

What, exactly, are they suing for, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the game infringes a patent it holds on copy protection software."
As far as I know, Minecraft does not have _any_ protection. The description of this patent is so incredibly broad that I'm not sure it is even legally defensible, but I guess that also allows it to mean whatever the patent holders want it to mean.

Re:What, exactly, are they suing for, again?

[Lisias]

Minecraft can sell this as a 'mechanism to deliver game content to its righteous owner'.

Re:What, exactly, are they suing for, again?

[bAdministrator]

Fingerprinting, it seems. I guess even relaying a MAC (the unique identifier attached to network interface cards) address would infringe on this patent.

It's basically what programmers did back in the day to check whether the processor was supported by their program, or to conditionally execute floating point instructions, if the platform had a floating point unit. The *only* difference here is that the same information is used to form an identifier to check whether the system platform has changed since the last time the program started, and it stores this information somewhere to run a comparison against.

It's kind of reminiscent of the public key system.

Re:Not a Patent Troll

[Osgeld]

shareware had the same functionality 10 years prior, it was obvious then, its obvious now, fuck them, they contributed nothing and feel entitled to everyone's hard work for ripping off an idea that already existed in software

troll knows troll, this be a troll

Whew!

[Black Parrot]

I thought it was going to say they held a patent on digging a hole in the ground.

Re:Whew!

[X0563511]

Well, they will be holding a patent on it soon, because it's step #1 in pounding sand...

Re:Not a Patent Troll

[bky1701]

So, what have they done since then? Oh, right, lawsuits. That's what we call a patent troll, son. Rambus is no less a patent troll for having a lot of patents and a lot of lawsuits. This company is just as bad.

1. Get patent.
2. Milk industry

And people think I am crazy for being an IP abolitionist.

FWIW you ARE a patent troll

[Sycraft-fu]

And trying to AstroTurf Slashdot as an AC won't convince anyone otherwise.

If you weren't a patent troll you'd contact companies for licensing ahead of time, and not wait for a product to get huge, then sue.

That is the real difference in methodology. Companies with legit patents will go and try to license their patent to everyone, and only sue when people refuse to license but use the technology anyhow. Patent trolls sit quietly and wait for things to become a big success and then sue for "damages" for their patent nobody has ever heard of.

So fuck off son.

Re:FWIW you ARE a patent troll

[eWarz]

Yep, this, legit companies would license their patents. If Uniloc were serious about their patents, they would have tried to license the technology to Mojang and other companies prior to legal action. As it is, I would recommend looking at history. Patent trolls rarely win.

Re:FWIW you ARE a patent troll

[eWarz]

Oh and, if you are from Uniloc, I have one more thing for you: Don't fuck with minecraft and DON'T fuck with Mojang. It's one thing to harass microsoft (who basically everyone hates but deals with because there isn't a better solution), but to fuck with an indie game developer that everyone loves....that's like kicking a poor old lady in a wheel chair in times square in NYC, what the fuck do you think is going to happen here?

Re:FWIW you ARE a patent troll

[drkstr1]

Your mention of damages made me think. My understanding is that you can only sue for provable damages. So how would a patent troll determine this amount if the patent is not being used in any products they produce? (this is not a rhetorical question)

Re:FWIW you ARE a patent troll

[Dragonslicer]

Your mention of damages made me think. My understanding is that you can only sue for provable damages. So how would a patent troll determine this amount if the patent is not being used in any products they produce? (this is not a rhetorical question)

One method is to figure out how much money the infringing party gained because of their illegal use of the patent. If the patent covers the entire infringing product, then it's pretty easy. If it isn't, then you can either try to estimate what percentage of the product the patent covers, or estimate what it would cost to alter the device so that it doesn't infringe.

Re:FWIW you ARE a patent troll

[Theaetetus]

If you weren't a patent troll you'd contact companies for licensing ahead of time, and not wait for a product to get huge, then sue.

That is the real difference in methodology. Companies with legit patents will go and try to license their patent to everyone, and only sue when people refuse to license but use the technology anyhow. Patent trolls sit quietly and wait for things to become a big success and then sue for "damages" for their patent nobody has ever heard of.

No, that's a difference in terminology. From wiki:

Patent troll is a term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

Uniloc does market the patented invention. Therefore, they're not a troll. They may be a patent extortionist (or any one of several other terms describing aggressive litigants), and they could even be jerks or assholes. But if you accept that effective communication requires you to use common definitions for terms or else explicitly provide your own, then Uniloc is not a troll.

Re:FWIW you ARE a patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing to harass microsoft (who basically everyone hates but deals with because there isn't a better solution), but to fuck with an indie game developer that everyone loves....that's like kicking a poor old lady in a wheel chair in times square in NYC, what the fuck do you think is going to happen here?

Some nerds will rage. Nobody else will care. This will play out in court. Someone will win.

Re:FWIW you ARE a patent troll

[chilvence]

Ah ok, so they're not an alligator, just a harmless wickle cwokodile

The mega-turbo-coincidence/irony in this story

[slashmydots]

Their name is Uniloc. There's another nationwide company called Unilock that makes bricks for high end custom brick and paving jobs...and Minecraft is all bricks. What a coincidence lol.

Re:Not a Patent Troll

[X0563511]

I don't care. They are throwing software patents around and should be scourged into nonexistance.

Re:The thing with trolls...

[X0563511]

Starsiege is not new, nor does it use voxels.

Re:Robot vs Tentacle Sex

[X0563511]

We downmod this shit because it's stupid, not because there's some conspiracy.

Troll?

[pbjones]

Uniloc has been in business and producing product for a long time, I don't think that Patent Troll fits the bill, Does Mindcraft (lol) need to be targeted? dunno.

Re:Robot vs Tentacle Sex

[Anachragnome]

I'm not the guy that tried to get the story posted. I was just seeing if posts that linked to it were deleted as well. I put four links out there and none were deleted. Modded into the dirt, yes, but deleted...no.

Three of the four were modded -1 Offtopic, as they should have been. The other was ignored entirely as it was hidden as a response to a post already modded into the negative.

So, in short, nothing amiss.

Don't need to be a coder

[Firethorn]

You missed the point, I think. One, THIS lawsuit targets DRM, but I said 'copyright, trademark, and patent' - there's many avenues where Notch(if he wasn't a nice guy) could target something like minetest - you wouldn't need to be a coder for the game at all. Companies that merely use open source software have been sued for copyright infringement.

And you don't even need to reside in the United States to find yourself being sued in a Texan court over this stuff. Just ask Spamhaus.

As for Notch, well, he's living the american dream. I'm not going to grudge him his success, though yeah, at this point paying to have minecraft done in something other than Java would be good. He wasn't expecting to make millions from the game, and he coded in what he knew(at the time).

How do they plan to do this?

[Hentes]

A European company sues another European company in a Texican court over an American software patent? That's a new level of trolling.

Re:How do they plan to do this?

[Schmorgluck]

American civil procedures are what makes patent trolling a viable tactics, due to the American Rule.

In any European court, Uniloc would risk ending up paying Notch's attorney fees.

Re:prisoner's dilemma

[ivrogne]

Life is not prisoner's dilemma. It's iterated prisoner's dilemma because people can actually build up reputations. It's been shown that the best stable strategy is tit-for-tat plus forgiveness.

Do you have a reference? I would be super-thankful.

StanfordU lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Oa4Lp5fLE

cant see the forest for the trees

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual ye slashdotters have a solid grasp of the intricacies of the issues with patent law. As usual you miss the big picture. You want to fight patent trolls? Heres how to do it: Public awareness. We can all acknowledge that patent trolls are a cancer upon society, and patent law is flawed enough to let them flourish. Exactly how and why is up for debate, but if you want real change you need PR campaigns, you need the general population to understand that THEY are getting screwed by this system. Not some company whose products they dont use anyway, but their own selves. If enough people care, politicians care. If politicians/media care, its now in the realm of public debate. This issue is NOT yet in public debate.

How to raise awareness is then the challenge, and not one I know much about. I would think anyone working in journalism might have good opportunity to expose the industry, or you could write to newspapers asking about their stance and coverage on the topic.

Really?

[publiclurker]

just because you think you have the right to steal the hard work of everyone else does not mean that people who genuinely create unique inventions should just sit around and let you leach off of their hard work.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

What hard work? Did you even read the patent? This guy had an idea and patented it. He built no product. He did no work. He is attempting to steal the hard work of people who actually created unique inventions and products which happened to have a (what should be considered obvious) method of verification.

Literally, the entire patent is: Take smart card (someone else's hard work), insert into smart card reader (someone else's hard work) attached to a computer (someone else's hard work) that is also attached to the internet (someone else's hard work), and communicate to server (someone else's hard work) to receive authentication (someone else's hard work) for the smart card's contents.

There is not a single part of that that is not someone else's hard work that Uniloc is leeching off of, and you have the gall to defend these asshats?

Speaking of Lawyers

[arthurpaliden]

Family gathering the other day and my mother in law reports with pride that my son's cousin is going into law. She then asks my son if he has ever considered going into law . Without even missing a beat he replies:

"No, my parents raised me better that that."

Re:Speaking of Lawyers

[chilvence]

Hah, please describe in detail her reaction for our collective enjoyment

or since they are lawyers

[publiclurker]

he can consider it community service.

Trolls are particularly vulnerable to their own MO

[Truth_Quark]

It turns out that making the process as difficult and expensive as possible for the patent troll is very effective. They don't have a clicks and mortar business generating cashflow or profit, so each lawsuit has to end up with positive cash.

If you start demanding that they spend time and money, they can rapidly disappear.

http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_troll.html

What patents are

[SciBoy]

This is exactly what patents are. You can't patent a car. You can't patent a gas. You can, however, patent the process used to make the car. Or patent a part of the car that functions in a certain way. The important point here is that a patent is not the same as a copyright. If you write a software, your code is copyrighted by default and no additional action is needed for that. You just make sure your code is marked by your name and the date you wrote it and it is yours (you might find it a tiny bit difficult to make it legally binding, it's tricky with software that can be back-dated and manipulated without trace, sending yourself a copy in registered mail I've heard is no longer a good option).

But if you want to patent something, then that patent must specify not just *what* (if you're patenting something physical) but also *how* you're using it. This means, for example, that it is perfectly legal to use someone elses patent in your patent claim, if you're using it in some new way that the original patent did not specify.

For example, if I create a new kind of potato peeler and write it as "a device for peeling the skin off of potatoes" then someone else may (as far as I understand) patent using the exact same device for peeling apples. That's why it's important to think of as many applications or to be general when describing the patent (I could have written "a device for peeling the skin of any kind of round object with a skin". Then again, the more generally I describe my device, the bigger is the risk that the definition infringes on some existing patent.

Irony

[DarthVain]

Does no one else see the irony of getting sued for copyright infringement of copy protection software?

Get Cash For Surveys

[rileystapley]

Imagine companies paying you just to get your opinion about whether or not
you like their products sound too good to be true? It isn't.
Thousands of companies are hiring people right now to do just that!

There are opportunities worldwide, so it doesn't even matter what country you're from.

** Taking a simple, easy online survey - $5 to $75 per survey!
                                                        Or
** Participating in an online focus group - $50 to $150 per hour!
                                                        Or
** Trying out new products, everything from shoes to stereos - Keeping the
      products and getting paid!
                                                        Or
** Previewing Movie Trailers Online - Then answer a yes/no questionaire
      (did I like it) for $12 to $35

Benefits Include:

* Work Online From Home!
* Join From Any Country!
* Set Your Own Hours!
* Get Paid Weekly!
* Start Immediately!
* One-time Fee to Join!

http://ow.ly/cs5pH

Imagine "Real Life" Flying At The Comfort Of Your

[rileystapley]

Now YOU Can Experience REAL Flying with ProFlightSimulator
The Most *Realistic* Flight Sim Ever Created!

** With 120+ Aircraft to Master, From the 1903 Wright Flyer to the
      Latest Military Fighter Jets.

** 20,000+ Real Airports With changeable Weather and NASA Flight Models.

** Realistic Worldwide Terrain Based On US Defense Mapping Agency + Lifetime FREE
      updates/upgrades

* " This Flight Sim Was Designed To Be 100% REAL! "
        ProFlightSimulator gives you REAL aircraft, REAL scenery, and REAL controls

        http://ow.ly/cwFBE