Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Minecraft Patent Lawsuit

A tweet by Minecraft creator and Mojang founder Markus "Notch" Persson reveals that Mojang is being sued for patent infringement over Minecraft, saying: "Step 1: Wake up. Step 2: Check email. Step 3: See we're being sued for patent infringement. Step 4: Smile." He's posted the complaint in Adobe Acrobat format, and Boing Boing notes the plaintiff in this case, Uniloc calls itself an intellectual property "incubation lab" specializing in computer security, but they just call them patent trolls, noting that the suit was filed in Tyler, Texas, which besides being the birthplace of NFL legend Earl Campbell, is apparently also renowned as a place where the courts are known to friendly to the plaintiffs in such cases.

Here's word from the complaint: "Mojang is directly infringing one or more claims of the í067 patent in this judicial district ... by or through making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing Android based applications for use on cellular phones and/or tablet devices that require communication with a server to perform a license check to prevent the unauthorized use of said application, including, but not limited to, Mindcraft [sic]."

For his part, Notch tweets about his resolve to fight this out in court, just as he did when sued over the right to name his next game scrolls, saying: "Unfortunately for them, they're suing us over a software patent. If needed, I will throw piles of money at making sure they don't get a cent." He also blogs about this, giving his outlook on such litigation. Here's a portion:

But there is no way in hell you can convince me that itís 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.

A common argument for patents is that inventors wonít 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?

I will say that there are areas which are very costly to research, but where the benefits for mankind long term are very positive. I would personally prefer it to have those be government funded (like with CERN or NASA) and patent free as opposed to whatís happening with medicine, but I do understand why some people thing patents are good in these areas.

Trivial patents, such as for software, are counterproductive (they slown down technical advancement), evil (they sacrifice baby goats to baal), and costly (companies get tied up in pointless lawsuits).

Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at the bottom of the form.

63. Re: Minecraft Patent Lawsuit Jul 23, 2012, 12:56 Orogogus
 
Beamer wrote on Jul 23, 2012, 12:25:
Orogogus wrote on Jul 23, 2012, 11:56:
Beamer wrote on Jul 23, 2012, 11:49:
Orogogus wrote on Jul 23, 2012, 11:44:
There are no cheap, easy wins in the drug industry.

Not sure why I'm the one you're arguing with, but sure there are. Anything incremental is a cheap, easy win.

It's all relative, is it not?

You posited that there were few incentives for drug companies to go after bigger, more difficult gains. In reality, those projects get looked at a lot because all drug development for the US is difficult whether it's for a cold symptom suppressant or the cure for cancer. The buy in cost is very, very high (although it is admittedly much higher for cases where the clinical trials will involve people dying). If you haven't seen many of the hard ones yet, it's because things that are hard take time.

And if they can make as much money on the easy ones they go for those. It's hard science, but the decision making isn't - if a company has two options in front of them, one that will take 100 million to get to market and one that will take 50 million, and the expected revenues for both are about the same, and the likelihood to get to market are about the same, which do they go after?

The situation is often more like that the buy in cost (clinical trials, FDA clearance, patent work) is enormous - say, $1 billion -- and then the remaining difference is relatively small - tens of millions. In such a situation companies look at the bottom line of how much money it can make because a lot of the cost is already set (or can't be anticipated, which is almost the same thing). And there's no longer really any low hanging fruit to be had, although some things, like cures for cancer, are known to be difficult.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
Subject
Comment
     
 
      ;)   ;)   :(   :(   :o   :o   %)   %)   :)   :)   :|   :|   ;P   ;P   X|   X|   :D   :D   More
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you have a signature set up, it will be automatically appended to your comment.
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 
          Email me when this topic is updated.
 

Special Codes

  • b[bold text]b
  • i[italic text]i
  • u[underline text]u
  • -[strikethrough text]-
  • c[code text]c
  • +[bullet point]+
  • q[quote text (indented)]q
  • [quote="Author"]quote text (indented)[/quote]
  • [url=Link]text[/url]
  • r{red text}r
  • g{green text}g
  • b{blue text}b
  • m{maroon text}m
  • s{secret text (shows in the background colour)}s

Forum Rules

  1. Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated.
  2. Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.
  3. Do not post spam, links to warez sites, or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
  4. Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as 'griefing' will not be tolerated.


footer

Blue's News logo