5 ms·

I don't think there's any doubt that Mojang / Microsoft are entitled to use his work. But I don't think it's clear whether he has the rights to the work or not.

zimpenfish 4y ago
> But I don't think it's clear whether he has the rights to the work or not. He owns the copyright, hasn't transferred the copyright, he clearly owns the rights in the work. > I don't think there's any doubt that Mojang / Microsoft are entitled to use his work. I think you're right that there's an implied license for them to use it but the scope of that license was never specified and I'd guess a clever lawyer could make reasonable hay from the case that it's now much broader than he wanted.
- microsoftdoes 4y ago
  Nope this guy agreed to it in email. It’s over. License didn’t need to transfer since Microsoft bought Mojang, not just specific property of Mojang.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > Nope this guy agreed to it in email. Can you quote the bit of the article which says that? All I can see is that he said "ok, what's your offer?", Carl returned with "€20k", and "in all the confusion someone sent me the money, even though we still didn’t have a contract worked out" - no contract, no license.
    - microsoftdoes 4y ago
      “and so I said, OK, I’ll take whatever the first thing you offered was.” Edit: I’m rate limited, but Microsoft doesn’t need a transfer. They bought the entire company. Just like you buying some shares on the stock exchange, except they bought all of the shares in a private transaction. Had they done an asset purchase instead, your point might be valid.
      - zimpenfish 4y ago
        Which is an implied contract, yes. Which a court would probably find that Mojang have an implied license to use the poem, yes. But the terms of that license are unknown - a court may well decide that it did not apply to Microsoft since he didn't sign that contract. And it also means that he did not assign copyright to Mojang or Microsoft which removes that avenue of them claiming they can use it for free.
        doodlesdev 4y ago
        Ready his comment again. It does not matter because Mojang still exists, it's just a Microsoft-owned company now. The contract and everything else related to the game is still property of Mojang, nothing has been transferred.
        zimpenfish 4y ago
        > It does not matter because Mojang still exists A court may well consider that becoming a wholly owned subsidiary would violate a license, despite being a distinct legal entity[1][2]. Especially when it's just an implied license with no actual agreed definition on both sides. [1] Which is similar to what we're seeing with ARM vs Qualcomm and it should be interesting to see how that shakes out. [2] Mojang into Microsoft sounds like "forward triangular merger" on this page: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2003/4/will-your-intellectual-property-rights-survive-your-merger https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2003/...
        microsoftdoes 4y ago
        You’ve linked an article about a doctrine specific to patent law. Does not apply here. Also, it only speculates that it might be in issue in an acquisition of a subsidiary (vs. a direct merger).
      - jcfhchcjxhx 4y ago
        nice try mr Microsoft lawyer. he smartly follows the line you quoted out of context with "and even that they didn't deliver" or something. so, no contract, an email agreement which was never fullfilled. man, be happy this guys is a spineless hippie or you would be working overtime and still paying a deal.

zimpenfish 4y ago

> But I don't think it's clear whether he has the rights to the work or not. He owns the copyright, hasn't transferred the copyright, he clearly owns the rights in the work. > I don't think there's any doubt that Mojang / Microsoft are entitled to use his work. I think you're right that there's an implied license for them to use it but the scope of that license was never specified and I'd guess a clever lawyer could make reasonable hay from the case that it's now much broader than he wanted.

microsoftdoes 4y ago
Nope this guy agreed to it in email. It’s over. License didn’t need to transfer since Microsoft bought Mojang, not just specific property of Mojang.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > Nope this guy agreed to it in email. Can you quote the bit of the article which says that? All I can see is that he said "ok, what's your offer?", Carl returned with "€20k", and "in all the confusion someone sent me the money, even though we still didn’t have a contract worked out" - no contract, no license.
  - microsoftdoes 4y ago
    “and so I said, OK, I’ll take whatever the first thing you offered was.” Edit: I’m rate limited, but Microsoft doesn’t need a transfer. They bought the entire company. Just like you buying some shares on the stock exchange, except they bought all of the shares in a private transaction. Had they done an asset purchase instead, your point might be valid.
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      Which is an implied contract, yes. Which a court would probably find that Mojang have an implied license to use the poem, yes. But the terms of that license are unknown - a court may well decide that it did not apply to Microsoft since he didn't sign that contract. And it also means that he did not assign copyright to Mojang or Microsoft which removes that avenue of them claiming they can use it for free.
      - doodlesdev 4y ago
        Ready his comment again. It does not matter because Mojang still exists, it's just a Microsoft-owned company now. The contract and everything else related to the game is still property of Mojang, nothing has been transferred.
        zimpenfish 4y ago
        > It does not matter because Mojang still exists A court may well consider that becoming a wholly owned subsidiary would violate a license, despite being a distinct legal entity[1][2]. Especially when it's just an implied license with no actual agreed definition on both sides. [1] Which is similar to what we're seeing with ARM vs Qualcomm and it should be interesting to see how that shakes out. [2] Mojang into Microsoft sounds like "forward triangular merger" on this page: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2003/4/will-your-intellectual-property-rights-survive-your-merger https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2003/...
        microsoftdoes 4y ago
        You’ve linked an article about a doctrine specific to patent law. Does not apply here. Also, it only speculates that it might be in issue in an acquisition of a subsidiary (vs. a direct merger).
    - jcfhchcjxhx 4y ago
      nice try mr Microsoft lawyer. he smartly follows the line you quoted out of context with "and even that they didn't deliver" or something. so, no contract, an email agreement which was never fullfilled. man, be happy this guys is a spineless hippie or you would be working overtime and still paying a deal.