"Mojang is one of ten companies, including Electronic Arts, GameLoft and Square Enix, that have been named in the lawsuit. The patent that Uniloc claims Mojang and others are using without permission describes a way to check that a person wanting to play a game has the right to do so. If not, that person is locked out of the game. In its court papers, Uniloc says the version of Minecraft for Android mobile phones violates its patented technology. Throughout the court papers, Uniloc misspells the name of the hugely popular game as 'Mindcraft'." Markus Persson, known as Notch, has this to say: "Software patents are plain evil. Innovation within software is basically free, and it's growing incredibly rapid. Patents only slow it down." Notch added that he will throw piles of money at this case to make sure the trolls don't get a cent.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-04
Member since:2006-01-07
Member since:
2006-01-14
Member since:2007-11-11
The problem is the opportunity costs. For the next 2 or 3 years this guy is not gonna be doing nothing but dealing with his lawyers and the courts.
And the worst part? Even if he wins not only will he be out the money, because even if he wins and gets his lawyer's fees they can simply close up shop and reopen tomorrow under a new name and start up again** but any other troll can come along and do it all over again with different patents.
(**I've seen this kind of operation with the natural gas wildcatters in my home state, they "lease" everything from a shell corp so if the business gets in trouble? Simply close shop, open a new business and "lease' everything again. that way there isn't even any assets to grab)
Member since:
2011-01-26
I've skimmed over the granted patent (I'm not a patent lawyer, sorry) and it appears to describe simply a licence manager that allows a grace period and then list many combinations of device, storage and authentication that could be applied.
If this patent really does stand up (which I personally believe it shouldn't) then why are they only going after these 10 companies?
Just about every licence managed piece of software would appear to fall foul of it!
Member since:2006-07-26
Member since:
2007-08-05
Member since:
2012-03-29
This patent is a good example of why software should not be patentable. It is really difficult to figure out what exactly is patented here, and there are so many missing details that it would be impossible to recreate the original "invention" from the description. Additionally, it appears to be multiple inventions covered by a single patent, which isn't supposed to happen. It is amazing this patent was granted in the first place.
Member since:2011-01-28