<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:osnews="http://www.osnews.com/rss2#">
	<channel>
		<title>OSNews: </title>
		<link>http://www.osnews.com/story/26223/Minecraft_creator_sued_by_Uniloc_serial_litigator</link>
		<description>Exploring the Future of Computing</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams</copyright>
		<webMaster>adam+nospam@osnews.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 17:47:40 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		
		<item>
			<title>US justice system sucks donkey balls</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?528407</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?528407</guid>
			<description>Even piles of cash may not be able to fix it. I don't think he wants to spend his minecraft millions in court.</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (kragil)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>prior art</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?528408</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?528408</guid>
			<description>He should ask Groklaw for help.  There should be prior art out there that they can use in court.  That or he should just stop selling to US residents.</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (TechGeek)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Only 10?</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?528411</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?528411</guid>
			<description>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.<br />
<br />
If this patent really does stand up (which I personally believe it shouldn't) then why are they only going after these 10 companies?<br />
Just about every licence managed piece of software would appear to fall foul of it!</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (BushLin)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: Only 10?</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?528413</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?528413</guid>
			<description>I'd imagine starting a case with 1,000 defendants would be a pretty good indicator that the lawsuit is frivolous.  Plus, 1,000 companies could actually mount an impressive defense and counterattack, unlike 1,000 individuals accused of downloading movies/songs.</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (izomiac)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Was wondering when something like this would happen</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?528434</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?528434</guid>
			<description>Too many big guys here, especially EA.  I don't think this patent troll has a chance.Edited 2012-07-27 02:24 UTC</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 02:21:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (tuaris)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: US justice system sucks donkey balls</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?528577</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?528577</guid>
			<description>*deleted*Edited 2012-07-27 20:26 UTC</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (mlaporte)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Good Example of a Bad Patent</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?528619</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?528619</guid>
			<description>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 &quot;invention&quot; 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.</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2012 02:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (jburnett)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: Good Example of a Bad Patent</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?528620</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?528620</guid>
			<description>Good example of a patent troll too.<br />
<br />
It seems bad patents can be just as profitable as good ones. Of course that comes at the expense of other developers who pass on costs to consumers. We are the ones who pay outright for this kind of product inflation.</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2012 04:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Alfman)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: prior art</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?528744</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?528744</guid>
			<description>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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
(**I've seen this kind of operation with the natural gas wildcatters in my home state, they &quot;lease&quot; everything from a shell corp so if the business gets in trouble? Simply close shop, open a new business and &quot;lease' everything again. that way there isn't even any assets to grab)</description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2012 01:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (bassbeast)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
