CS.RIN.RU - Steam Underground Community
http://cs.rin.ru/forum/

Ok, WTF? Minecraft creator being sued
http://cs.rin.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=61485		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  cYCyIYoRDf [ Wednesday, 25 Jul 2012, 02:23 ]
Post subject:  Re: Ok, WTF? Minecraft creator being sued
.
Author:  ChrisTX [ Wednesday, 25 Jul 2012, 08:14 ]
Post subject:  Re: Ok, WTF? Minecraft creator being sued
peshkohacka wrote:
Basically a patent troll patent something as trivial as opening a webpage through typing an address (for example) and files the documents.

It's not as easy as patent something. Patent trolls evolve from either SMB companies who made valid patents or holdings who buy them.

peshkohacka wrote:
The problem is deep inside the patent process and how it applies to IT industry. While the patent system worked somewhat good till the 80-90s it started to fail completely when it comes to Internet patents.

No. Patent trolls are pervasive on any field of innovation, this is not IT-specific, although it is often pictured as such. If falling apart means trolling, then this hasn't begun back then. Also related: Trademark or copyright trolls.

peshkohacka wrote:
The Patent Office have almost non-existing requirements for electronic or software-based patents, so you can actually patent (if its not already patented) the idea to start a program to play a game and sue Valve, Ea, Blizzard etc.

Absolutely untrue. Patentability is usually requiring non-triviality and no prior art. Keep in mind that patents that might sound trivial now might be actually non-trivially by the time they were filed. Also, the US uses the machine-or-transformation test here.

peshkohacka wrote:
I don't thing Mojang can win this case easily, cause the process is really pro-longed and its hard to prove something to a judje that barely knows how to send an email.

Uff. Judges specialize, too. There are judges specialized on IT-related patents qualified to reason over this. Otherwise such lawsuits were simply not possible to be dealt with in a professional manner.
And I disagree, while the initial filing lets you only guess what might be the actual claims asserted, the patent itself sounds not applicable because of the actual network-related licensing procedure not being a part of the Android/iOS apps in question, but a part of the base system. Although I'm not exactly sure whether Minecraft has a separate authentication that might be attackable.
Author:  cYCyIYoRDf [ Friday, 27 Jul 2012, 00:39 ]
Post subject:  Re: Ok, WTF? Minecraft creator being sued
.
Author:  ChrisTX [ Friday, 27 Jul 2012, 02:16 ]
Post subject:  Re: Ok, WTF? Minecraft creator being sued
peshkohacka wrote:
Well if we take what you say as you say it, the system is perfect isn't it? Patent trolls are predominant in the IT industry, while they are not exclusive to it, they are much more numerous in this industry. Trolling companies trive in the it-industry, because its really easy to buy a near-bankrupt company with couple of patents in the IT-industry, rather than anywhere else. And as far as judges goes - there were cases where ignorant judges ruled in favor of the trools with obvious proof that they were innocent, but the judge due to incompetence ruled the most ignorant way possible.

No, I don't think the system is perfect: It is far from being that. Also, patent trolls are absolutely not IT-exclusive - people often seem to have the impression this would be the case, it's not. In fact, the actual core problem isn't even patent specific. As I mentioned above, trademarks are just as good targets: Just take a look at the recent lawsuits about the iPad name in China.

The problem is rather this: For any kind of intellectual ownership (patents, trademarks, copyrights, ...) it is very difficult to create a fair and balanced system that prevents trolling.
Often enough, people mention how software patents (because this topic is what concerns the techies most) should be banned. Then, it starts at the point that defining a software patent is incredibly hard. Algorithms can be implemented in either software or hardware, if you patent the hardware implementation and not the software one, where is the difference? If you stored a patented hardware-implemented algorithm in form of microcode on a chip is it still a hardware implementation or a software one which would be not patentable (and thus not claimable) in that scenario even though the algorithm and the outcome is the same?
But then, why would software not be patentable and anything else would be? There's just no objective difference here. Abstract algorithms for calculations that are nevertheless implemented in hardware and so forth would be suddenly grey area. Retroactively, determining what a software patent is and what is not is literally not possible either.

Now, the real question is: If you can't ban patents entirely how do you define "reasonable" usage? You can't create a patent/trademark/..-free system, since this would cause massive copying of intellectual property, which might be volatile, but requires huge R&D costs. Most patent systems already require the patent in question to be implemented at least and to pass tests on the general question of patentability. Tracking the actual implementation status of a patent is near impossible after grant - even if you required a company to have a patent at least currently in use for it to apply, that's trivial to bypass for every patent troll.

In fact, I don't think I've heard any serious suggestions on how to improve the overall system except for the ban software patents glibberish by some free software advocates. There is no objective reasoning on why software would be different by any means from hardware.

peshkohacka wrote:
Im pretty sure what the outcome of this case is gonna be, but i'll keep it to myself.

I'm quite certain that you believe Uniloc will win this. Tbh, it's possible but due to the little information about what exactly is being claimed, it's very hard to make a judgment here.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC + 3 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/