Uniloc In Such A Rush To Sue 'Minecraft' For Patent Infringement, It Didn't Even Spell The Name Right
from the yes-in-eastern-texas dept
Last time we visited Notch, the creator of Minecraft, and his legal woes, he was being sued for trademark infringement over his company Mojang's latest game, Scrolls. That suit was eventually settled—though unfortunately not over a Quake 3 match as Notch proposed. We probably won't get a similar offer from Notch in this new scenario: he's being sued for patent infringement by the Eastern Texas-based patent troll Uniloc. This is the same Uniloc whose suit against Microsoft led to the CAFC ruling that 25% of all profits for a single patent infringement claim was just a tad excessive.So why exactly is Mojang getting sued for patent infringement? Well, Uniloc was awarded a patent for a "System and Method for Preventing Unauthorized Access to Electronic Data" back in 2005 (Patent # 6,857,067). The primary claim is that since Mojang has an Android game that uses a network to communicate with an authorization server to perform a license validation check, Mojang has willfully infringed on the patent. The game named in the suit is "Mindcraft"—which of course is not actually the name of Mojang's game. While it is very possible that Mojang may be infringing this patent, Notch stated in a follow up tweet that he is more than willing to "throw piles of money at making sure they don't get a cent". On that same front, this patent could also be invalidated if it is successfully challenged in court.
Perhaps Notch can take some solace in knowing that he is apparently not alone in being sued. According to Reddit, a number of other game companies are being sued for infringing this same patent. This list includes the likes of Gameloft, EA, Square Enix, Halfbrick Studios and a number of other developers. This practice of suing multiple parties for infringing a single patent is a typical sign of a patent troll. It is also a symptom of the huge mess that is software patents.
In a followup blog post, Notch reflected on the idea of software patents and patents in general. He even provided a nice illustration of theft, copyright infringement and patent infringement.
But there is no way in hell you can convince me that it’s beneficial for society to not share ideas. Ideas are free. They improve on old things, make them better, and this results in all of society being better. Sharing ideas is how we improve.The post is short but full of some really good insights. Some of them we have touched on before, such as the idea that patents are actually harmful to the software industry. This suit also illustrates another point we have recently written about: how it is impossible to avoid infringing someone's patent. On the bright side, as more such patent infringement suits are filed and more companies and individuals are harmed by the current patent system, perhaps we will see those in Washington take notice and implement some real reforms.
A common argument for patents is that inventors won’t invent unless they can protect their ideas. The problem with this argument is that patents apply even if the infringer came up with the idea independently. If the idea is that easy to think of, why do we need to reward the person who happened to be first?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: authorization server, minecraft, patents, video games
Companies: mojang, uniloc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Prior Art
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
in case lucrative doesn't exist in English.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 23rd, 2012 @ 10:32am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Monkeys could fly out of your butt, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You expect anything in East Texas to be obvious except patent lawsuits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is clear you understand the topic very well and are offering your concise view of it.
Oh you mean online trolls aren't the same as patent trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, "Thank you Captain Obvious," like, "No shit, Sherlock," is meant to point out that the person said something pointedly, blatantly, and objectively so; yet, "Monkeys could fly out of your butt, too," is used to indicate that what was said is so improbably as to be impossible.
On the other hand, it is possible that you have mixed up your meds to such an extent that you think monkeys flying out of butts is not only likely, but actually constantly occurring and is therefore worthy of derision for pointing out.
"Of course monkeys are flying out of my butt. Why don't you point out that the sky is magenta while you're at it, Sherlock."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"A" problem, not "The" problem
That is a problem for sure. But there is an even bigger problem: that argument is empirically false. Inventors will still invent if they can't protect their ideas (and many people actively reject any protection, for many reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe a running total of patents sunk would embarrass law makers into action to fix the obviously broken system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Breaking the sections of required work into small pieces people feel they can tackle a bit here, a bit there.
While it might require a lot of work, breaking it up means many hands make lighter work. So looking at how the process is being done now vs how else it could be done might be in order. It is only when we stop trying that it is impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that patent doesn't exist, I'm going to apply for it and own EVERY online game in the world!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCsoft#Worlds.com_patent_lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/I would say patent commenting on the internet, but I already own that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Step 1 go after the big guys get publicity.
Step 2 very quickly name a bunch of small devs and try to get settlements to fund the big suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ideas are our countries strength
What is it going to take for Washington to see that software patents in particular (and some design patents.. I'm looking at you Apple) are stifling new ideas for making a better product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ideas are our countries strength
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ideas are our countries strength
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ideas are our countries strength
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ideas are our countries strength
No, the patent troll will wait until you've made sufficient profits to make suing you worthwhile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this patent mean that all DRM is infringing?
WHY ARE WE NOT CHEERING THIS PATENT?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Par for the course with the absurd nature of "IP" law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problems
Second, the patent in question is on DRM. Even if we accept patentability of software, you'd have to say that only features should get patented - DRM is not a feature, in fact it's an anti-feature. If you write software that prints a file you want that program do the best damn job at printing it can. If you design a program to tell the user "no, I won't print this file, because I don't like you" you're designing your software to be defective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent troll's name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patent troll's name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just compare the codes and the judge will see the game's code is not infringing on the patent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A patent is about achieving a result using a specified method, so you could infringe even if you wrote everything from scratch. This is one of the major problems of software patents; it's far too easy to infringe accidentally.
If you look at the patent there is no code specified anywhere, and I doubt this troll has actually got any code which implements this method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: �we�re using your invention and we�re not going to pay or stop�. This is just dissembling by large infringers and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft. The fact is, many of the large multinationals who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don�t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
limitations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
subjective realpolitik
Free Rider: what Patent Trolls call infringers who expect others to shoulder all the R&D burdens alone, but then feel free jump in to reap the rewards of the other guy's work in their perky, energetic, what-me-worry?-I'm-not-fatigued-by-any-R&D-struggles state of being. Compare "scavenger".
Not all patentees are trailblazing pioneers, of course, and not all granted patents ought to have issued. But fights should be about individual patents, and patent examination procedures, not the patent system as a whole, unless you have something better with which to replace it. As it is, individual and small-business inventors at least have a roll of the dice to try and stake out a claim as to what value they add to society by inventing new things (and then be compensated fairly therefor, based on arm's-length licensing negotiations); otherwise, the only route is to sign up with some big firm, say, McPatents Research, Inc. and develop work-for-hire on the basis of a flat salary and the possibility of a gold watch after twenty-five years.
Getting a little sick and tired of reading forum posts some of which seem to be written by couch-potato gamers -- who might totally freak if it seems like a patent holder wants to be paid for developing tech that makes the gamer's favorite game possible (or in some cases, technology not required for playing the game, but "required" in the sense of economic feasibility -- without some DRM, game won't go to market). "Soviet Russia was never annoyed by patent law."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trolling
Steve Jobs. Using patents to attempt to conspire to suppress developer salaries. Now THAT's a patent troll.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57565314-37/steve-jobs-threatened-palm-with-patents-over-no-po aching-deal-says-court-filing/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mindcraft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]