9 ms·
Mojang, makers of Minecraft, sued by patent troll
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ryanmacg 14y agoFor further info on the patent in question http://news.priorsmart.com/uniloc-v-mojang-ab-l6rh/#pat-6857067 http://news.priorsmart.com/uniloc-v-mojang-ab-l6rh/#pat-6857...
- gioele 14y agoLink to the patent, no Flash required: http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067 http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067
- paraschopra 14y agoHow do CEOs of patent trolls sleep at night?
- Torn 14y agoOn fat wads of cash?
- Foy 14y agoOr in their coffins?
- RBerenguel 14y agoThat's for day sleeping, only
- astrodust 14y agoYou presume all people have a sense of empathy, but many do not.
- csense 14y agoMany people who claim they have a sense of empathy, could probably lose it or deal with the occasional conscience pang, if a seven-to-nine figure sum was involved.
- citricsquid 14y agoThis is confusing. Minecraft on Android doesn't have any Minecraft specific authentication service, it's tied to your google account just like all other Android (market) apps. You can find the app here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mojang.minecraftpe&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mojang.min... The entire suit is based on something patently (ha ha ha) untrue. Minecraft on the PC /does/ authenticate with a licensing server, but this suit specifies mobile.
- wedtm 14y agoIt's alright, the actual product cited is MINDcraft.
- georgespencer 14y agoMindcraft doesn't exist, so I'm guessing that this is a mistake by the legal team. If it were significantly wrong (e.g. "Photoshop" rather than "Minecraft") then they'd have to file again. In this instance it's similar enough that most courts will allow it, although it looks bad for the lawyers involved.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- aeurielesn 14y agoAs far as I know, Mojang doesn't have a game called "Mindcraft[sic]." I wonder if this makes the whole plaintiff void?
- sgift 14y agoI have no idea of us law but I think they still have a case because they wrote "the unauthorized use of said application, including, but not limited to, Mindcraft." and not only "Mindcraft".
- janmonschke 14y agoHow did the patent troll know about the unreleased and unannounced Minecraft 2 aka Mindcraft??
- tinco 14y agoI have a question about this. Can you be sued from Texas if you sell your software in any state _but_ Texas? So if I add a clause to my EULA that the product can not be bought or used in the state of Texas, would that force patent trolls to sue in a different state? edit: This wiki.answers page seems to say that could work http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_someone_sue_another_person_if_they_do_not_live_in_the_same_state http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_someone_sue_another_person_if_...
- jahewson 14y agoYou might also be expected to take some measures to enforce this, such as a State drop-down box, with an "I agree" EULA/ToS.
- rprasad 14y agoYou are referring to a "choice of forum" clause (which is distinct from a "choice of jurisdiction clause"). Choice of forum determines where any disputes are held. Choice of jurisdiction determines what state's laws apply (if the dispute involves a matter of state law).
- jahewson 14y agoI don't think so, I was suggesting that a company could simply not do business with anyone in an undesirable location (e.g. Texas), and have that as part of the EULA, but with some proactive form of enforcement such as a drop-down, much like those "enter your birthday" age-checks, as passively adding it to the EULA text might not be good enough.
- codeka 14y agoHow is this even possible? Firstly, they've spelled the name of the infringing product incorrectly. Secondly, it doesn't even do what they're saying it does. OK, I mean, it's possible, but is anyone taking this seriously? Does this lawsuit even stand a chance?
- csense 14y agoIt's probably going to cost a gazillion dollars for Mojang to defend against, since patent lawyers are expensive. The troll can probably determine how small Mojang really is and just try to use legal procedures to make things as expensive as possible. No need to actually fight for real (as they presumably did against Microsoft.) This is why we should have a mandatory award of attorney's fees to the winner in IP cases. It would make lawyers more willing to take Mojang's side on a contingency basis (they only get paid if Mojang wins).
- fleitz 14y agoThey were also dumb enough to sue EA, my bet is this goes away pretty quickly (at least for EA) http://www.scribd.com/doc/100637098/Uniloc-et-al-v-Electronic-Arts http://www.scribd.com/doc/100637098/Uniloc-et-al-v-Electroni... A cursory reading of the claims explicitly outlined against Mojang makes me wonder if it's even a valid claim, they seem to be claiming the 'computer executable code' in claim 107 instead of a 'method'. It also seems like there would be plenty of prior art to find computer code on an electronic device to prevent unauthorized access. I think the PDP-10 and UNIX would suffice such prior art.
- ivanvanderbyl 14y agoI was actually quite surprised to read this on HN, I once met Ric Richardson the founder of Uniloc shortly after he sued Microsoft for infringing a similar patent, and I usually laugh at anyone trying to enforce software patents but this time I would take it a lot more seriously.
- simonw 14y agoWhy would you take it a lot more seriously?
- DanBC 14y agoBecause the decision has flip-flopped a few times, but at the moment Microsoft has settled. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/microsoft-settles-fight-over-uniloc-anti-piracy-patent-1-.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/microsoft-settles-f...) MS has lawyers, and money, and time, and thus for them to lose is concerning. (Not saying anything about the applicability of this patent to Mojang.)
- ceejayoz 14y agoDefending a patent suit costs millions. Settling may simply have been cheaper, while still giving a big payday to the troll.
- georgespencer 14y agoThe patent is here: http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067?printsec=abstract#v=... I'd encourage you all to read it. The majority of the summary, related art and claims are related to "smart cards". That is: a user plugs a smart card into their computer, which has one half of a licence key on it, and it then verifies this with a server either over LAN or the web. There are a couple of broad claims which could, if upheld, cripple many systems which work like this (log in to installed software over the web, essentially). I think (think) they might go on to claim that the SIM has a UID (it does) which is somehow involved in the process of authing a user for Google's store. If that's the case, or Google is indeed passing identifiable information from your phone to your Google account for auth purposes, then that appears to be covered by the patent, which specifically mentions SIM cards as one potential alternative "smart card". What really pisses me off about this is the fact that the patent holders so clearly conceived of a really terrible piece of technology. It was filed in 2005 at a time when a lot of music software came with hardware decryption (i.e. an anti-piracy USB key you had to stick in to your computer when using the software) and they apparently thought that "smart cards" were the way forward. Turns out they were shit out of luck on that, but in passing they mentioned something so vague that it inevitably came to pass.
- stonemetal 14y agoDoes anybody know where to report prior art. The US announced they were going to use CAC(common access cards) for security in 2000. CACs are smart cards you have to use to log in to military websites among other things.
- georgespencer 14y agoSorry, I made a mistake in my summary: the patent was granted in '05 but filed in 2001.
- invisible 14y agoSending this to Mojang wouldn't hurt.
- 14y ago
- foz 14y agoSYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC DATA. When are governments finally going to do something about the patent system?
- Kerrick 14y agoWhen are people going to start reading more than just patent titles? This specific system and method involve using a card inserted into a computing device paired with a server over a network for authentication. It goes deeper than just the title.
- DannyBee 14y agoNo it doesn't involve that at all. Please read independent claim 1, not the abstract or the description.
- aristidb 14y agoWhen patents are readable. That is, never.
- foz 14y agoYes, read the patent. It covers a lot more than that specific case, which is why the title is vague and is exactly why governments should step in and stop this madness.
- atirip 14y agoThis is hilarious. Mojang is on not subject of US laws, US software patents can not be enforced either. So Mojng can totally ignore that case.
- rwmj 14y agoDangerous ... A default judgement could prevent them from selling Minecraft in the US, and could implicate other companies helping them who are based in the US (ie. Google & Appple because their stores are presumably located there).
- ricardobeat 14y agoHow do you prevent sales in the US if it's only sold online? They can't order blocking using geolocation since the company is in Sweden... now I'm curious.
- rwmj 14y ago[I'm not saying any of this is right, just pointing out how it's done] (1) You go after the companies collecting the money (Visa etc) and delivering the app (Google, Apple). These very much have physical offices and principals in the US. (2) You arrest people who dare to fly through/over/near the US. See: legal UK gambling companies. (3) You attempt to extradite anyone not caught by (1) or (2), if necessary pushing for one-sided extradition and IP laws to do so.
- jahewson 14y agoIn response... 1) Yes, also I guess they could order ISPs to block the website, but I don't know if there is any precedent for this. 2) No, patent infringement is not a crime 3) No, patent infringement is not a fellony (or crime). If there was a Default Judgement against them then violating it may be a contempt of court, which may be a crime - anyone know if that's the case? Edit: Wikipedia says "Contempt of court in a civil suit is generally not considered to be a criminal offense".
- 14y ago
- Kiro 14y agoDumb question maybe but how can they sue a Swedish company? As far as I know there are no such things as software patents in Sweden.
- citricsquid 14y agoProbably because Mojang sell their product(s) in the US.
- Kiro 14y agoBut what happens when they don't have a legal entity in the US? Who will enforce it?
- DrJokepu 14y agoThey can stop the distribution in the United Stares. In addition, Swedish courts would probably honor the decision of the US court.
- fchollet 14y agoSwedish courts would not honor such a ruling if it were to be, since it would be against European law (there are no software patents in Europe). Generally court decisions almost never have international validity (especially business related ones).
- nraynaud 14y agothis is a civil lawsuit (x has to give money to y because he created a damage), not criminal. If they deem the trial fair, whatever the underlaying law was, they will enforce the decision.
- dedward 14y agoIf the business is in Sweden, it would have to go to court in Sweden, would it not? Does Sweden actually allow judges to have a look at a foreign decision and then just declare their ruling, no trial, nothing? I suspect not (eager to learn if otherwise)
- teyc 14y agoUniloc is Australian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric_Richardson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric_Richardson and it won more than $300m from MS.
- simonster 14y agoThat page says that the $388 million verdict was overturned on appeal, and that "an undisclosed amount in compensation to Richardson."
- ploss99 14y agoI found it confusing that he is portrayed as a "generous supporter of the innovation, invention and startup ecosystems" in Australia and has been invited to speak at startup conference in sydney. http://sydstart.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/ric-richardson-inventor-from-uniloc-confirmed-to-speak-at-sydstart-2012-spring/ http://sydstart.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/ric-richardson-inve...
- heeton 14y agoI love how the Plaintiff has called the game 'Mindcraft'!
- jebblue 14y agoHow can a European company sue a European company in ... Texas? If I were the judge I'd kick it out of court on shear lunacy.
- swdunlop 14y agoThat's why they are filing in east Texas, it's a jurisdiction that is friendly to patent trolls. Lunacy is the business model.
- Arwill 14y agoThis is pretty fucked up. So now anyone in the world can expect to be sued in the US on base of US software patents? How do you release anything in a situation like this. Then there is the burden of going to a court in Texas? How in the fuck they expect that a Swedish company hires lawyers in Texas? Just how much would that cost? Also this is going to beyond any sanity. Practically you have to stick to some common "protected by a big company" technology, else you run the risk of inventing something new (on your own), and running into some broadly worded patent. This is actually contrary to "protecting innovation". If you actually innovate, you run the risk inventing something that someone already patented, and then you are fucked. Under such circumstances its much safer to just not try to innovate...
- mattmanser 14y agoIt's because Mojang sells stuff in the US via their website. I also assume Mojang could just completely ignore it if they have no assets in America, although I guess they'd be a risk of having minecraft.net seized as .net's US administered isn't it?
- astrodust 14y agoIs it possible to prohibit the use of your products in that part of Texas to avoid exposure?
- DanBC 14y agoNotch should mobilise some of those millions of players. (http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml)
- kposehn 14y agoWhat I find so hilarious about this is that they refer to it as "Mindcraft".
- mparlane 14y agoInvalid lawsuit? :P
- kstrauser 14y agoI propose a fun and existing amendment to intellectual property cases: if the plaintiff loses, the defendant gets to shoot the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's CEO) and the losing legal team. Not at a distant time and place, mind you, but right there on the spot. "We the jury find the defendant not liable blam blam." I think that should reduce the number of patent lawsuits to approximately the number appropriate for an educated and free society. If you really, really feel that you've been wronged, go for it! But don't waste the court's or society's time, resources, and goodwill on horrid antisocial crud like this.
- jmduke 14y agoThe fuck? Replace 'intellectual property' with 'whistleblower' and you've suddenly illustrated exactly the terrible climate that scares a lot of people away from doing the right thing. The problem isn't overzealousness. Hell, overzealousness should be commended. The problem is a system which drains time and resources regardless and outcome, and a general ignorance due to the complexity of technology & prior art.
- kstrauser 14y agoWe want overzealous IP litigation? To the contrary: yes, that is exactly the problem.
- jmduke 14y agoOverzealous litigation is preferable to underzealous litigation with the assumption that litigation always favors justice and truth. Obviously, that latter is not true, and that's the issue here.
- freehunter 14y agoHow about a more realistic thought (the humor in your post has been noted), how about if when you lose a patent case as the plaintiff, you (or your company) are no longer allowed to file patents in the future, and your existing patents are now invalid.
- n9com 14y agohaha love the typo "mindcraft" rather than "minecraft" (pg3, section 12).
- antihero 14y agoOr "Mindcraft" as the legal document describes it.
- sigkill 14y agoThis article suddenly reminded me of another link that was on front page a few weeks ago. That one was on how to incorporate a company in another country without being there. People wanted to incorporate their software startups in the US due to ease of payment processing and stuff. After seeing these kind of patent trolls, I wonder if anyone would even think of incorporating the the US. If your product is international, and you're incorporated in the US and then a patent troll fucks you up, you'll have to waste so much time on all the procedures in addition to the money. And if anything goes wrong, then you'll have to pay hefty penalties/fines/royalties or close shop. If your company is incorporated outside the country, granted you might find it a little hard to get your payment processor set up, but atleast you know that patent trolls [which, unfortunately seem to primarily originate from the USA] would be able to only shut down your business in one country. And, as long as you had a website up, people will find ways to bypass the country restriction. [Hint - Amazon's free app of the day isn't just being enjoyed by people in the USA]
- rprasad 14y agoLogged in just to reply. European IP law makes US IP law look like a walk in the park. The RIAA and MPAA notwithstanding, the US has actually been the voice of restraint in the IP rights field. Enforcement and defense is also easier, as you do not have to contend with a variety of separate court systems as you do in Europe or Asia. That being said, if you are running an international operation, your IP should never been based in the US for tax reasons. It should be held by an Irish (or other low-tax jurisdiction) company dedicated to holding your IP (i.e., an "IP holding company").
- Vivtek 14y agoWhich is why you would set up a subsidiary LLC in the United States, and dissolve it if it's sued.
- hmmmmmmmmmm 14y agoWould this be a viable way to escape some frivolous patent lawsuit? I've often wondered about this, and even tried to research it somewhat, but I'm still unsure about it. Suppose I have an LLC for my small (one-man) business in the U.S., and then I get targeted by a patent troll with some ridiculous claims. Can I simply start up another LLC in another country (one with saner patent laws), transfer my domains/hosting/whatever else to it, and dissolve the U.S. LLC? It seems too easy.
- niels_olson 14y ago> Uniloc aka "one line of code"? I have a hypothesis that at least some of the patent trolls are actually a non-violent protest against the way patent law is implemented. They're forcing, demanding, the legal system catch up.
- thenomad 14y agoI think the patent trolls might have chosen the wrong target on this one. You can get away with suing Microsoft without too much PR fallout. No-one is going to get that upset. But attacking a much-beloved company with a much-beloved founder with a suit that could prevent millions of people from playing their favourite game? I'd expect a certain amount of, shall we say, "third party action". Said patent troll might want to hire more phone operators. And PR guys. And security personnel.
- csense 14y agoPR only matters to them if their relationship with their customers is consensual. This is not the case with a patent troll.