4 ms·

Aussie inventor's $445m Microsoft windfall wiped out

13 points by bootload 17y ago

tumult 17y ago
"It was never about the money. It was about the ethics of it ... winning a court case is not winning the lottery." Haha, bullshit. Nice to a see judge make a reasoned decision. This site The Age is also absurdly biased in favor of this patent troll. They even play up a "small guy taking on big bad business" angle. What a journalistic joke.
- mahmud 17y ago
  Publishing is not immune to parochialism. Everyone is a hero in their hometown paper.
shalmanese 17y ago
alternate title: patent troll fails at attempted extortion
- bootload 17y ago
  "... patent troll fails at attempted extortion ..." when you mention patent troll I think Nathan Myhrvold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold) not Ric Richardson. Ric actually builds stuff and to characterise him as an extortionist is opinion only. "... To me, the money is important only in so far as it allows me to further my ideas. ..." (http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-in-a-van-outsmarted-microsoft/2009/04/19/1240079538770.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-in...) To me a patent troll is someone who buys patents then threatens the alleged infringer with profit in mind. That describes Nathan Myhrvold (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-Ventures-Patent-Protection-Racket?from=rss http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-...) and Intellectual Ventures. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures) The fact that Nathan is a former Microsoft CTO also hints at the culture of Microsoft. Where does that leave Uniloc? Just how do companies who create strategic technology with an entrepreneurial eye approach potential buyers without being ripped off? Microsoft has prior form ripping off competitors (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22microsoft+ripped+off++*%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22microsoft+ripped+off++*%22) and Uniloc another victim. Ric Richardson has form for building stuff. Lets see who continues to be the troll?
  - tumult 17y ago
    No, sorry. His patent is ridiculous. It's trolling – cast a wide net and set the cruise control. Sue and hope you get lucky. You might make a buck off the broken system! Blatant example of why software patents should be abolished in general.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      can you explain what happened to me: the only story I read is that he showed MS his patented tech in 1993 and they turned it down and re-implemented it themselves. Im guessing that is in no way the full unbiased story from what your saying; got any good links?
      - tumult 17y ago
        He had a patent granted in 1996 that covers: product activation, shareware, and machine ID locking. There's not really much else to say, it's idiotic. The Age has no idea of how much damage this would have done to an already battered set of affairs, had the ruling been let to stand. It's shameful they're propping this moron up onto a pedestal.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Cool thanks. I totally agree with you. Though I wonder if there is the argument that he is using this patent right... if he did show his specific work to Microsoft and they subsequently implemented it themselves would you not agree he was ripped off by them? Now, if he had this patent and was suing any old company left right and centre I would join you in calling him a moron (he could well take that approach in the future - then he would be a moron). Right now I am seeing a tiny sliver of validity in his claim (if what appears to have happened is true). I'd argue in this case the patent is doing what it is supposed too (though the outcome didn't go quite right).
        tumult 17y ago
        It doesn't matter who he targets with it, it's completely wrong. It sets the wrong precedent in every way. Why should it be "ok" for him to target Microsoft with it, but not some smaller developer? There's no validity to his claim, this "news report" is totally biased. He patented stuff that had been going on since the 80s and then immediately turned to sue the biggest company he could find, hoping to win a payout. The jury sided with the "little guy" and the judge threw out the verdict based on their bias. (I think that's what happened, anyway.) I'm assuming he can appeal, but I hope it he doesn't fare any better this time.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  You didn't read the article, did you? A patent troll is, basically, an NPE. In other words, it's someone who does not make anything, only patents or buys patents without ever attempting to make stuff. This shields the troll from any possible violation on its own part while makes PEs vulnerable to its lawsuits. This guy patents stuff, but also builds things. He should not be considered a troll. And, BTW, while obvious now, could not be so in 1993. In fact, I am unaware of any prior art showing its features.
lionhearted 17y ago
I was going to weigh in, but a number of comments already spelled it out. > Richardson's patent, one of many under his name, relates to work he did in the early 1990s and covers a software registrations system that allows software makers to create try-before-you-buy versions of their work. There's a lot of asinine software patents - like Apple has patented the specific touch screen motions used on the iPhone. They're pretty intuitive motions - there's only so many ways to move your fingers on a screen that make sense. Patents were made to protect inventors and stimulate innovation - patents on obvious evolutions in technology do the opposite.
- nedwin 17y ago
  Blackboard is one of the worst offenders. edit: correct link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_Inc.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    They're gradually losing their patents. With any hope universities may have decent software one day.
codexon 17y ago
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180587.asp?from=blog_last3 http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180587.asp?from... > The technology in question included the use of a software activation key to keep users from installing licensed software on more than one computer. I have no love for stupidly obvious patents, but what the judge did seems like an abuse of power.
callmeed 17y ago
This appears to be the patent: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5490216.html http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5490216.html From the abstract, you'd think this guy could sue every software company that uses a license key or registration number.
fungi 17y ago
The "little aussie battla" (he aint little) nationalism is embarrassing, doubly so coming from ppl wouldn't even know what a software patent is... or how stupid they are... or that we are stuck fuskin things in exchange for selling wheat under the USA-AussieLand free (preferential) trade agreement... blood boils
antipaganda 17y ago
The patent would certainly be considered obvious nowadays, but that's not the point. The guy did show his work to Microsoft, they said "Nice idea, yoink". He did indeed have a patent on the idea. He won an appeal based on the fact that the judge did not listen to a jury's opinion on the case. So they got a jury, and the jury voted in favour of Richardson. And the judge again ignores the jury. What the hell, man?
- varjag 17y ago
  > The guy did show his work to Microsoft, they said "Nice idea, yoink". That's his version of the story.
  - cubicle67 17y ago
    Well, that was pretty common form for MS during the 90's. There's dozens of companies who's work MS stole blatantly, often under the pretence of 'That's a great tech you've got. let's work together on it'
    - varjag 17y ago
      So far it sounds more as if someone came to you with "newly-discovered" bubblesort algorithm, you said "uh nice" and proceeded using quciksort, then got sued.
andy008 17y ago
I believe Uniloc’s so-called invention is nothing more than a rehash of much older ideas and technologies that already existed. Firstly, the whole try before you buy idea was popularised by Bob Wallace in 1983 with the release of his shareware software PC-Write, a word processor that you could trial for free and register if you liked it. (see http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v2/2_4_html/2_4_08_Waddell.html http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v2/2_4_html/...). This concept was adopted by hundreds of software authors in the 80’s, and quickly evolved to include time limits and activation keys long before Uniloc. Users enjoyed the ability to try a fully functional product before purchase. However, even Wallace acknowledged he got the term shareware, which embodies the whole try before you buy idea, from a computer column that appeared in Infoworld magazine in the 70’s. Secondly, software protection schemes that relied on hardware to generate security keys were common-place in the mid 80’s. Australian software company Pittwater Distributors developed an application called Cashbook in the early 80’s which used a plug-in hardware dongle (a small hardware key) in order to secure the application. Other companies such as Alpha-Micro and Sun-MicroSystems used serial numbers stored in the physical hardware of the computer. I personally worked on a software encryption and protection systems in 1984 for game publisher Electronic Arts which relied on keys derived from the physical software media (a tape or disk). This approach was extremely common-place at the time. In short, software trial mechanisms and protection systems were obvious, common-place technologies and marketing models long before Uniloc. I agree with the judge.

13 points by bootload 17y ago

"It was never about the money. It was about the ethics of it ... winning a court case is not winning the lottery." Haha, bullshit. Nice to a see judge make a reasoned decision. This site The Age is also absurdly biased in favor of this patent troll. They even play up a "small guy taking on big bad business" angle. What a journalistic joke.

mahmud 17y ago
Publishing is not immune to parochialism. Everyone is a hero in their hometown paper.

shalmanese 17y ago

alternate title: patent troll fails at attempted extortion

bootload 17y ago
"... patent troll fails at attempted extortion ..." when you mention patent troll I think Nathan Myhrvold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold) not Ric Richardson. Ric actually builds stuff and to characterise him as an extortionist is opinion only. "... To me, the money is important only in so far as it allows me to further my ideas. ..." (http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-in-a-van-outsmarted-microsoft/2009/04/19/1240079538770.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-in...) To me a patent troll is someone who buys patents then threatens the alleged infringer with profit in mind. That describes Nathan Myhrvold (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-Ventures-Patent-Protection-Racket?from=rss http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-...) and Intellectual Ventures. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures) The fact that Nathan is a former Microsoft CTO also hints at the culture of Microsoft. Where does that leave Uniloc? Just how do companies who create strategic technology with an entrepreneurial eye approach potential buyers without being ripped off? Microsoft has prior form ripping off competitors (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22microsoft+ripped+off++*%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22microsoft+ripped+off++*%22) and Uniloc another victim. Ric Richardson has form for building stuff. Lets see who continues to be the troll?
- tumult 17y ago
  No, sorry. His patent is ridiculous. It's trolling – cast a wide net and set the cruise control. Sue and hope you get lucky. You might make a buck off the broken system! Blatant example of why software patents should be abolished in general.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    can you explain what happened to me: the only story I read is that he showed MS his patented tech in 1993 and they turned it down and re-implemented it themselves. Im guessing that is in no way the full unbiased story from what your saying; got any good links?
    - tumult 17y ago
      He had a patent granted in 1996 that covers: product activation, shareware, and machine ID locking. There's not really much else to say, it's idiotic. The Age has no idea of how much damage this would have done to an already battered set of affairs, had the ruling been let to stand. It's shameful they're propping this moron up onto a pedestal.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Cool thanks. I totally agree with you. Though I wonder if there is the argument that he is using this patent right... if he did show his specific work to Microsoft and they subsequently implemented it themselves would you not agree he was ripped off by them? Now, if he had this patent and was suing any old company left right and centre I would join you in calling him a moron (he could well take that approach in the future - then he would be a moron). Right now I am seeing a tiny sliver of validity in his claim (if what appears to have happened is true). I'd argue in this case the patent is doing what it is supposed too (though the outcome didn't go quite right).
        tumult 17y ago
        It doesn't matter who he targets with it, it's completely wrong. It sets the wrong precedent in every way. Why should it be "ok" for him to target Microsoft with it, but not some smaller developer? There's no validity to his claim, this "news report" is totally biased. He patented stuff that had been going on since the 80s and then immediately turned to sue the biggest company he could find, hoping to win a payout. The jury sided with the "little guy" and the judge threw out the verdict based on their bias. (I think that's what happened, anyway.) I'm assuming he can appeal, but I hope it he doesn't fare any better this time.
rbanffy 17y ago
You didn't read the article, did you? A patent troll is, basically, an NPE. In other words, it's someone who does not make anything, only patents or buys patents without ever attempting to make stuff. This shields the troll from any possible violation on its own part while makes PEs vulnerable to its lawsuits. This guy patents stuff, but also builds things. He should not be considered a troll. And, BTW, while obvious now, could not be so in 1993. In fact, I am unaware of any prior art showing its features.

lionhearted 17y ago

I was going to weigh in, but a number of comments already spelled it out. > Richardson's patent, one of many under his name, relates to work he did in the early 1990s and covers a software registrations system that allows software makers to create try-before-you-buy versions of their work. There's a lot of asinine software patents - like Apple has patented the specific touch screen motions used on the iPhone. They're pretty intuitive motions - there's only so many ways to move your fingers on a screen that make sense. Patents were made to protect inventors and stimulate innovation - patents on obvious evolutions in technology do the opposite.

nedwin 17y ago
Blackboard is one of the worst offenders. edit: correct link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_Inc.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  They're gradually losing their patents. With any hope universities may have decent software one day.

codexon 17y ago

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180587.asp?from=blog_last3 http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180587.asp?from... > The technology in question included the use of a software activation key to keep users from installing licensed software on more than one computer. I have no love for stupidly obvious patents, but what the judge did seems like an abuse of power.

callmeed 17y ago

This appears to be the patent: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5490216.html http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5490216.html From the abstract, you'd think this guy could sue every software company that uses a license key or registration number.

fungi 17y ago

The "little aussie battla" (he aint little) nationalism is embarrassing, doubly so coming from ppl wouldn't even know what a software patent is... or how stupid they are... or that we are stuck fuskin things in exchange for selling wheat under the USA-AussieLand free (preferential) trade agreement... blood boils

antipaganda 17y ago

The patent would certainly be considered obvious nowadays, but that's not the point. The guy did show his work to Microsoft, they said "Nice idea, yoink". He did indeed have a patent on the idea. He won an appeal based on the fact that the judge did not listen to a jury's opinion on the case. So they got a jury, and the jury voted in favour of Richardson. And the judge again ignores the jury. What the hell, man?

varjag 17y ago
> The guy did show his work to Microsoft, they said "Nice idea, yoink". That's his version of the story.
- cubicle67 17y ago
  Well, that was pretty common form for MS during the 90's. There's dozens of companies who's work MS stole blatantly, often under the pretence of 'That's a great tech you've got. let's work together on it'
  - varjag 17y ago
    So far it sounds more as if someone came to you with "newly-discovered" bubblesort algorithm, you said "uh nice" and proceeded using quciksort, then got sued.

andy008 17y ago

I believe Uniloc’s so-called invention is nothing more than a rehash of much older ideas and technologies that already existed. Firstly, the whole try before you buy idea was popularised by Bob Wallace in 1983 with the release of his shareware software PC-Write, a word processor that you could trial for free and register if you liked it. (see http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v2/2_4_html/2_4_08_Waddell.html http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v2/2_4_html/...). This concept was adopted by hundreds of software authors in the 80’s, and quickly evolved to include time limits and activation keys long before Uniloc. Users enjoyed the ability to try a fully functional product before purchase. However, even Wallace acknowledged he got the term shareware, which embodies the whole try before you buy idea, from a computer column that appeared in Infoworld magazine in the 70’s. Secondly, software protection schemes that relied on hardware to generate security keys were common-place in the mid 80’s. Australian software company Pittwater Distributors developed an application called Cashbook in the early 80’s which used a plug-in hardware dongle (a small hardware key) in order to secure the application. Other companies such as Alpha-Micro and Sun-MicroSystems used serial numbers stored in the physical hardware of the computer. I personally worked on a software encryption and protection systems in 1984 for game publisher Electronic Arts which relied on keys derived from the physical software media (a tape or disk). This approach was extremely common-place at the time. In short, software trial mechanisms and protection systems were obvious, common-place technologies and marketing models long before Uniloc. I agree with the judge.