Uniloc Creator Denies Mojang Lawsuit Involvement

[Duffy13]

If it was your intellectual property that was stolen and is being used without your permission I doubt that anyone here would object to a lawsuit to recover your losses. Just because Notch and his company Mojang created one good video game that holds a place in your heart does not put them above the law or prevent them from violating the law. If Mojang, or any of the listed companies, used this technology with out permission then they deserve being slapped with a law suit.

Wait...I'm confused, what did he patent..and how are these games companies infringing on it exactly?!

Some clarification:

This is a patent complaint, not a copyright complaint, therefore there is no "stolen" information. The use of "technology" is a misnomer, they aren't using anything that someone else made, Mojang made something that happens to logically be like this patented idea. Even if the patent holding company still made such a product the specifics are most likely not the least bit similar outside of end function.

The reason people are complaining is because it's a verbose outline without any significant specifics. Due to the nebulous and non-physical nature of software this generally means you can patent any idea without actually doing anything or producing a specific product. We consider this patent trolling and exploiting the legal system simply because not enough people understand software. That is why a lot of us are against this sort of thing.

The way these software patents are often written are the equivilant of patenting a flying car simply by saying:

Our Flying Car has jet engines, tires, seat belts, airbags and seats. It can fly in the air or drive on the ground. It has pedals and a stick or wheel for steering.

Notice how inane that is? That's what a lot of these patents read like to software people. Taking a bunch of generic ideas and concepts and arranging them into rough outline of an idea.

 

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

The Richardson blog said that HE personally isn't a patent toll.
I am still waiting for him to say HIS COMPANY isn't a patent troll.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

So why is Uniloc suing Mojang again? Because Minecraft is similar to Mindcraft?

 

[evilneko]

But... Minecraft doesn't even have DRM. :/

 

[RubyT]

The reason people are complaining is because it's a verbose outline without any significant specifics. Due to the nebulous and non-physical nature of software this generally means you can patent any idea without actually doing anything or producing a specific product. We consider this patent trolling and exploiting the legal system simply because not enough people understand software. That is why a lot of us are against this sort of thing.

This is exactly it.

Edison patented the incandescent light bulb, not any kind of light emitting thing. Diesel patent an engine, not the principle of burning fossile fuels to produce energy.

Software patents have a tendency to protect an idea, not an implementation, which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what patents should do.

Software is math, programming languages are abstractions of math. Math can't be patented. It can't even be copyrighted.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to write any kind of advanced software today without impeding on a patent. Whether that's valid or not doesn't even matter, because the patent offices have the modus operandi: when in doubt, grant the patent, let the courts figure it out later.
Which is insane.

In some countries, the losing side of a lawsuit has to pay the winner's attorney bills. Which makes it very dangerous when someone comes along with a foggy patent description and the words "East Texas".

In other countries, like the US, no side pays for the other's attorney fees, which makes it impossible for the little man to win - even if he wins. Patent trolls have the money, I don't.

This whole patent system reeks of extortion or protection money schemes. And currently you only get by hoping you won't be noticed, if you're small enough. Which doesn't sound like the Rule of Law, it sounds like Might is Right.

 

[RaikuFA]

Wait...I'm confused, what did he patent..and how are these games companies infringing on it exactly?!

DRM, apparently. Though I'm not sure how Mojang's involved.

Wouldn't Ubisoft be involved then?

 

[faefrost]

A link to Frederic Richardson's patent

It's not quite as vague as it is portrayed in the article. Now, if someone has a general disagreement with the length of patent protection, I can agree to that... but this patent document is pretty lengthy and specific, and he actually made the item in question (it's not theoretical).

I do believe you are one of the very few people who frequent The Escapist that actually has a grasp of this issue. I think my time with The Escapist is winding down due to frequently irresponsible journalism that is short of facts and tall with sensationalism and the crowd of spectators that read and believe without thinking critically. I might go back to IGN. IGN is bought by publishers, that is true, but at least the journalism is of exceptional quality when it is genuine.

After perusing the patent, I have to disagree with you guys. It's a BS patent. All it does is outline how you could do something (albeit at great length), there is no specific implementation that is being stolen and used. Maybe, maybe they could argue the algorithm outlined near the end is "specific" but I highly doubt Mojang is using a copy of that. Theoretically whoever holds the original Relational DB Model patent could probably sue them for associating data with unique IDs. See the absurdity of non-specific software patents yet?

The debate is not over the patent existing or what it covers, the debate is should it be enforceable? Among most knowledgeable people the answer is no. You want copyright over specific code you wrote so people can't just take your specific effort? Fine. But you spout an idea with no actual implementation and claim ownership of anyone else's actual effort to create it? To hell with you. Form and Function should be required which due to the nature of software is inherently a copyrightable product, and thus software patents are pointless.

This is what always bothers me with software patents. They are essentially patenting thinking. Software should be subject to copyright, not patent. And no patent should ever be granted simply on a vague idea or concept. Some degree of detailed implementation to make the thing yours should be required. The patent being argued here looks about as valid as someone seeking to patent the color blue.

If Mojang or whoever are using Unilocs code, or specific mathmatical formulas developed and published by Uniloc, then fine there is a patent case. If they are simply using amechanism of DRM with no real direct implementation of any technical nature that can be tied back to Uniloc then yeah they are complete and utter trolls. The fact that they filed this in our favorite place in Texas tells us all we need to know.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Stealing a DRM software is pretty damned hypocritical.
On the other hand, I also don't care about Uniloc getting more money.

 

[Baldr]

A link to Frederic Richardson's patent

It's not quite as vague as it is portrayed in the article. Now, if someone has a general disagreement with the length of patent protection, I can agree to that... but this patent document is pretty lengthy and specific, and he actually made the item in question (it's not theoretical).

I do believe you are one of the very few people who frequent The Escapist that actually has a grasp of this issue. I think my time with The Escapist is winding down due to frequently irresponsible journalism that is short of facts and tall with sensationalism and the crowd of spectators that read and believe without thinking critically. I might go back to IGN. IGN is bought by publishers, that is true, but at least the journalism is of exceptional quality when it is genuine.

After perusing the patent, I have to disagree with you guys. It's a BS patent. All it does is outline how you could do something (albeit at great length), there is no specific implementation that is being stolen and used. Maybe, maybe they could argue the algorithm outlined near the end is "specific" but I highly doubt Mojang is using a copy of that. Theoretically whoever holds the original Relational DB Model patent could probably sue them for associating data with unique IDs. See the absurdity of non-specific software patents yet?

The debate is not over the patent existing or what it covers, the debate is should it be enforceable? Among most knowledgeable people the answer is no. You want copyright over specific code you wrote so people can't just take your specific effort? Fine. But you spout an idea with no actual implementation and claim ownership of anyone else's actual effort to create it? To hell with you. Form and Function should be required which due to the nature of software is inherently a copyrightable product, and thus software patents are pointless.

This is what always bothers me with software patents. They are essentially patenting thinking. Software should be subject to copyright, not patent. And no patent should ever be granted simply on a vague idea or concept. Some degree of detailed implementation to make the thing yours should be required. The patent being argued here looks about as valid as someone seeking to patent the color blue.

If Mojang or whoever are using Unilocs code, or specific mathmatical formulas developed and published by Uniloc, then fine there is a patent case. If they are simply using amechanism of DRM with no real direct implementation of any technical nature that can be tied back to Uniloc then yeah they are complete and utter trolls. The fact that they filed this in our favorite place in Texas tells us all we need to know.

Well specifically why code is not really copyrightable is because code usually can only be written one way. A Hello World program is pretty much going to look the same no matter who codes it. Since chunks of code can look the same for two totally different programs that do different things, it would be more of a mess than with software patents. (Copyright protects any adaptations, whether or whole or partial with the exceptions of the Fair Use clauses.)

 

[ms_sunlight]

This is what always bothers me with software patents. They are essentially patenting thinking. Software should be subject to copyright, not patent. And no patent should ever be granted simply on a vague idea or concept. Some degree of detailed implementation to make the thing yours should be required. The patent being argued here looks about as valid as someone seeking to patent the color blue.

Code is copyrighted, not patented. It's data, like text or audio.

Methods (e.g. algorithms) are patented. It's no more absurd than someone patenting a method to produce a certain chemical, or a machine to do a certain thing. Yes, that's "thinking" - it's the principle that if someone has a good idea and then invests the time, money etc. to develop it into something usable, they should not have that idea stolen from them.

 

[Nantucket_v1legacy]

The guy has a point.
If he made the DRM then companies do not have the right to steal it to stop their own work being stolen.

 

[Andrew_C]

Wait...I'm confused, what did he patent..and how are these games companies infringing on it exactly?!

Effectively he patented a remote system checking with a central server to check if it is authorised to access that server or take an action. This can cover DRM, this can cover Minecraft checking whether you paid for it before letting you play. It covers every single website in the world that only allows you to post if you are a registered member, like the Escapist. It also covers E-Commerce sites like Ebay and Amazon.

It also covers logging into a password-protected server from a remote terminal, like people have being doing since the Sixties.

It is ridiculously broad and should have been struck down on review.

Ric Richardson is extremely disingenuous. the US division of his company is based in Plano, Texas, the Patent Troll Capital of the World and he was quite happy to give interviews taking credit when it as whupping Microsoft's ass.

Is that Ric with a silent "P" like Ric from "The Young Ones", I wonder?

This is what always bothers me with software patents. They are essentially patenting thinking. Software should be subject to copyright, not patent. And no patent should ever be granted simply on a vague idea or concept. Some degree of detailed implementation to make the thing yours should be required. The patent being argued here looks about as valid as someone seeking to patent the color blue.

Code is copyrighted, not patented. It's data, like text or audio.

Methods (e.g. algorithms) are patented. It's no more absurd than someone patenting a method to produce a certain chemical, or a machine to do a certain thing. Yes, that's "thinking" - it's the principle that if someone has a good idea and then invests the time, money etc. to develop it into something usable, they should not have that idea stolen from them.

The problems is that when it comes to software, methods are usually broadly and vaguely defined, in a way that would not be acceptable for a Chemical Engineering patent, for example. See the patent in dispute for how broadly defined these patents can get. As a result they end up covering a whole range of related activities, instead of just one method of doing one activity.

Also, in the ongoing Oracle-Google lawsuit over Android, Oracle was arguing that non-algorithmic code is covered by patent and copyright law (IIRC, that header files were covered by copyright law). Fortunately that part of their lawsuit was thrown out.

 

[Exterminas]

I think this case proposes a rather interesting moral dilemma.
Basically it boils down to the question: When is an idea/invention that widespreat that it becomes shared culture and seizes to be an individual's property? (Does it ever?)

I mean that man certainly has a point, he invented that thing. On the other hand, if he hadn't, someone else probably would have. And by now this technology is so widely used and developed by other people that it becomes questionable if he should still be allowed to claim the same amount of ownership.

Granted, he put in two decades for that idea, but hey, he got a company out of it and doesn't seem like a poor guy whose invention got stolen, leaving him starving. All the other people who pirated his idea and developed their own software, based on his idea, they probably put in more than two decades if you combinde their efforts.

So does being the first constitute a permanent ownership? (In the case of america's screwed up copyright-system even long after the inventor's death)

 

[TheEndlessGrey]

A link to Frederic Richardson's patent

That's an incredibly dry read, but after forcing myself through the most relevant parts and comparing what they describe, very specifically, to every game install process I can recall... well they might have a point in some cases. I think the specificity of the language might work against them because I don't recall seeing this exact process, every step of it, in any single game. I have seen plenty of games that appear to match at least some of the steps though, and apparently that's enough to initiate a lawsuit.

 

[Andrew_C]

I think this case proposes a rather interesting moral dilemma.
Basically it boils down to the question: When is an idea/invention that widespreat that it becomes shared culture and seizes to be an individual's property? (Does it ever?)

I mean that man certainly has a point, he invented that thing. On the other hand, if he hadn't, someone else probably would have. And by now this technology is so widely used and developed by other people that it becomes questionable if he should still be allowed to claim the same amount of ownership.

Granted, he put in two decades for that idea, but hey, he got a company out of it and doesn't seem like a poor guy whose invention got stolen, leaving him starving. All the other people who pirated his idea and developed their own software, based on his idea, they probably put in more than two decades if you combinde their efforts.

So does being the first constitute a permanent ownership? (In the case of america's screwed up copyright-system even long after the inventor's death)

He didn't invent it though, he took a process used throughout the software industry and patented a specific application of it. He is now apparently using that patent to go after everyone using that process. Just because the East Circuit Court of Texas is stuffed with venal morons doesn't make the patent valid or him less of a troll.

And seriously it took him 2 decades to figure out how to make a program communicate with a server? people were doing that in the 60's. 40's if you include hardware devices like Teletypes were everything was done server-side.

 

[Scow2]

Wait...I'm confused, what did he patent..and how are these games companies infringing on it exactly?!

DRM, apparently. Though I'm not sure how Mojang's involved.

Wouldn't Ubisoft be involved then?

Probably not: This seems to be a form of DRM that's less intrusive than the monstrosities Ubisoft implements.

 

[MammothBlade]

Personally, I think he's lying. He has some involvement, and is implicitly supporting the patent trolling policies of the company he founded.

I had a look at Uniloc's site and well, it reeks of patent trolling. They talk about practically nothing but patent lawsuits as if it's their corporate raison d'etre.

In most circumstances, no-one should be able to patent a small bit of code or know-how. Especially if it doesn't require much effort for a bespoke reproduction. It holds back innovation if you have to pay royalties to so and so for every bit of technology, every bit of "intellectual property" you adapt into your own products.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I think this case proposes a rather interesting moral dilemma.
Basically it boils down to the question: When is an idea/invention that widespreat that it becomes shared culture and seizes to be an individual's property? (Does it ever?)

I mean that man certainly has a point, he invented that thing. On the other hand, if he hadn't, someone else probably would have. And by now this technology is so widely used and developed by other people that it becomes questionable if he should still be allowed to claim the same amount of ownership.

Granted, he put in two decades for that idea, but hey, he got a company out of it and doesn't seem like a poor guy whose invention got stolen, leaving him starving. All the other people who pirated his idea and developed their own software, based on his idea, they probably put in more than two decades if you combinde their efforts.

So does being the first constitute a permanent ownership? (In the case of america's screwed up copyright-system even long after the inventor's death)

Copyrights have been basically given the go-ahead to renew into eternity, but patents explicitly expire after 20 years, I think. As far as I know, nobody has ever successfully argued that a patent needs to be renewed past its original expiration date.