the whole concept of "uniloc" is very vauge. i say if mojang is not using ric's code then there shoould not be a problem with hat they are doing. btw, i could file a patent for numerous things, without even making them work. all i have to do is come up with the concept. the way that ric has written his case refering to mojangs product as "mindcraft" means he probably hasnt even looked into the case very far either. hes going to loose.
No. That's something that's just corrected by the defendant. "No, it's not Mindcraft, it's Minecraft". Argument heard, documents adjusted, court gets on to the meat of the matter.
However, from the patent: '
"A portable licensing medium is configured to communicate with the electronic device...."
um... I don't know of any portable licensing medium in use at all here. I mean, the software itself is downloaded, yeah, but it sure ain't portable - it's on my desktop. And it's not being used on cards, usb devices, or any other item to be configured for use with Mojang's licensing.
Oh and "The license data is used to determine whether to allow access to the electronic data" - this doesn't work. Minecraft uses the logins to _allow_ other people to use a server to determine whether they can log in to their servers. But you _can_ play minecraft offline without a userid and password. Not saying you should, but you can. So it doesn't _actually_ determine whether the data can be accessed, only whether you can access updates and/or servers that require your authentication.
But Notch's lawyers will come up with all of this stuff, I'm sure. Any good lawyer could beat this mess.
I'm just glad Notch is planning to, instead of settling.
i found a typo in the pdf "12. Mojang is directly infringing one or more claims of the ’067 patent in this judicial
district and elsewhere in Texas, including at least claim 107, without the consent or authorization
of Uniloc, 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." its says "mindcraft" instead of "minecraft"
If mojang can beat bethesda in a lawsuit they care sure beat these noobs
Mojang didn't beat Bethesda. Bethesda put up the proposal to allow Mojang to use the name "Scrolls" once. Mojang did not get the trademark or any rights at all, except being able to use the name this once.
So say I spend £500000000 making a game, and then sell it. You steal it, and then make money off it. Yeh, stupid patents protecting my work. How dare you not be able to steal my work?
That's not the same. This is a PATENT, not a COPYRIGHT.
A PATENT is the protection of an IDEA, not software or hardware or any other existing thing.
And in a smaller form, this is the lawsuit. I think that the mcforums have done nothing to help, only make notch look like a whingy two year old, not to mention the pathetic fans who are now sending hate mail. Why can't this be kept private? Why does something that challenges minecraft have to be made as ultra-public, ultra-hate as possible? Without any facts?
Did you even see the pdf link? It has a perfect copy of the legal document. I'm pretty sure that counts as 'fact'. And no, MCForums did not make Notch look 'whingy', which is not even a word. (I suppose you're trying to spell 'whiny').
No. That's something that's just corrected by the defendant. "No, it's not Mindcraft, it's Minecraft". Argument heard, documents adjusted, court gets on to the meat of the matter.
However, from the patent: '
"A portable licensing medium is configured to communicate with the electronic device...."
um... I don't know of any portable licensing medium in use at all here. I mean, the software itself is downloaded, yeah, but it sure ain't portable - it's on my desktop. And it's not being used on cards, usb devices, or any other item to be configured for use with Mojang's licensing.
Oh and "The license data is used to determine whether to allow access to the electronic data" - this doesn't work. Minecraft uses the logins to _allow_ other people to use a server to determine whether they can log in to their servers. But you _can_ play minecraft offline without a userid and password. Not saying you should, but you can. So it doesn't _actually_ determine whether the data can be accessed, only whether you can access updates and/or servers that require your authentication.
Actually, they're suing for the Android version of Minecraft PE, based on the word 'Android' in the PDF. Although since the name has a 14 character (or 16 if you count spaces) difference from what they're suing (they're suing 'Mindcraft', which is different from Minecraft Pocket Edition) this sue might not even work. Minecraft PE doesn't even USE an authentication system, so these guys have no idea what they're doing.
Apparently Uniloc has 'exclusive rights to license checks on Android cellular phones', but I'm pretty sure Minecraft PE isn't using any license checks.
So he's trying to sue not only Mojang, but Square Enix and EA, who have been in the gaming business for years and years and now he's suing them for protecting precious data? Just sounds like another broad and generic thing to be suing someone for, just like that author sued EA for using the concept of the Animus in Assassin's Creed. Or how about the whole run in with the Scrolls vs The Elder Scrolls deal. Scrolls were more about scrolls than The Elder Scrolls ever were. Plus, how would anyone mistake Scrolls for The Elder Scrolls anyhow? Point is, all of these lawsuits are all over generic concepts and are just an excuse to either get noticed or cause drama. Hope you get noticed Uniloc for all the wrong reasons.
Mojang didn't beat Bethesda. Bethesda put up the proposal to allow Mojang to use the name "Scrolls" once. Mojang did not get the trademark or any rights at all, except being able to use the name this once.
At least Bethesda realized how silly they were being and allowed it. Personally I don't think it should have worked out how it did since that kind of thing happens more often in the music business.
It's clear they're doing it for the money, as they were doing it for 8 years against Microsoft as well, and won $338 million, then lost it in the appeal. Guessing they want their money back, and don't care who it comes from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Great spirits have often encounctered opposition from weaker minds."
Hardly anyone uses smartcards lately, and Android phones certainly do not. The only smartcards I see lately are in cable decoder boxes.
Technically all GSM based phones use smart cards - they just come in a smaller form-factor now (SIM card for those not following).
Also, many government IT systems and large companies use smart cards for authentication. Often pointlessly, but used nonetheless.
wouldn't the fact that the legal document states the 'mindcraft app' make if null and void as their isn't a mindcraft app?
Depends on local laws. It would probably be ignored and the case proceed anyway in most places. Worst case they would need to re-file, which would simply put things off a few days or weeks.
Seriously, what is it with all of the weedy lawsuits springing up these days? Someone really needs to exercise their weed-whacker more often, especially during the filing stage of nonsense lawsuits like this one! And the misspelling - wow would Uniloc please at least learn how to spell Minecraft right? I doubt the company has an enforceable right to dictate to a mobile phone company what can be downloaded over their network anyway and to what types of phones. I really don't think Uniloc are targeting the right company here, either, shouldn't a company be allowed to use it's choice of protocol to authenticate based on common sense, availability, and to avoid clogging the owner's phone with senseless amounts of protocols just to authenticate through one phone provider?
I really hope Notch does more than just win this case against Uniloc, he should comprehensively defeat it's points basing his counter arguments on plain old common sense. It's evident to me that the phone provider and communication provider have to provide some form of protocol that transfers the account details to Mojang's Minecraft login servers securely, and that Mojang are only able to use these protocols because the phone provider and communication provider already agreed to allow this by registering Mojang's Minecraft login servers and allowing them to use a certain protocol. If the phone provider and communication provider did so unlawfully, then just maybe there would be a case for Uniloc to argue but I certainly can't see why it's Mojang who have to defend themselves in this case.
Looking over all the comment I see two common things people say:
1. They're doing it for the money
... Well, yeah. That's why you would sue people, lawl.
2. They said Mindcraft, not Minecraft
Just goes to show that some people are horribly stupid and helpless. This will show everyone that they're just a bunch of scammers and will try their best to bring them down. I hope Uniloc gets the money from a game that really doesn't exist.
Bottom line, money is the root of all evil, and this is a prime example, and the comments so far reflect that.
Why must every company come up with a "reason" to sue Mojang?<_<
Like what the h*ll!
These company's sue Mojang because Mojang is becoming richer by the second (look at the slow,rising number of people buying Minecraft on minecraft.net).
What a world we all live in.
Mine (IPA): /maɪn/
Mind (IPA): /maɪnd/
No. That's something that's just corrected by the defendant. "No, it's not Mindcraft, it's Minecraft". Argument heard, documents adjusted, court gets on to the meat of the matter.
However, from the patent: '
"A portable licensing medium is configured to communicate with the electronic device...."
um... I don't know of any portable licensing medium in use at all here. I mean, the software itself is downloaded, yeah, but it sure ain't portable - it's on my desktop. And it's not being used on cards, usb devices, or any other item to be configured for use with Mojang's licensing.
Oh and "The license data is used to determine whether to allow access to the electronic data" - this doesn't work. Minecraft uses the logins to _allow_ other people to use a server to determine whether they can log in to their servers. But you _can_ play minecraft offline without a userid and password. Not saying you should, but you can. So it doesn't _actually_ determine whether the data can be accessed, only whether you can access updates and/or servers that require your authentication.
But Notch's lawyers will come up with all of this stuff, I'm sure. Any good lawyer could beat this mess.
I'm just glad Notch is planning to, instead of settling.
-Sevi
....go figure.
district and elsewhere in Texas, including at least claim 107, without the consent or authorization
of Uniloc, 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." its says "mindcraft" instead of "minecraft"
i know right WTF
Mojang didn't beat Bethesda. Bethesda put up the proposal to allow Mojang to use the name "Scrolls" once. Mojang did not get the trademark or any rights at all, except being able to use the name this once.
Agreed. The man should be shown to a load of game-making tools while others handle the legal stuff...
Who cares? He doesn't need to be. He only needs to get the point across. Damned Uniloc supporter.
That's not the same. This is a PATENT, not a COPYRIGHT.
A PATENT is the protection of an IDEA, not software or hardware or any other existing thing.
Did you even see the pdf link? It has a perfect copy of the legal document. I'm pretty sure that counts as 'fact'. And no, MCForums did not make Notch look 'whingy', which is not even a word. (I suppose you're trying to spell 'whiny').
Actually, they're suing for the Android version of Minecraft PE, based on the word 'Android' in the PDF. Although since the name has a 14 character (or 16 if you count spaces) difference from what they're suing (they're suing 'Mindcraft', which is different from Minecraft Pocket Edition) this sue might not even work. Minecraft PE doesn't even USE an authentication system, so these guys have no idea what they're doing.
Apparently Uniloc has 'exclusive rights to license checks on Android cellular phones', but I'm pretty sure Minecraft PE isn't using any license checks.
Glowstone Wire | MCF Modlist
At least Bethesda realized how silly they were being and allowed it. Personally I don't think it should have worked out how it did since that kind of thing happens more often in the music business.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6857067
It's clear they're doing it for the money, as they were doing it for 8 years against Microsoft as well, and won $338 million, then lost it in the appeal. Guessing they want their money back, and don't care who it comes from.
Technically all GSM based phones use smart cards - they just come in a smaller form-factor now (SIM card for those not following).
Also, many government IT systems and large companies use smart cards for authentication. Often pointlessly, but used nonetheless.
Depends on local laws. It would probably be ignored and the case proceed anyway in most places. Worst case they would need to re-file, which would simply put things off a few days or weeks.
I really hope Notch does more than just win this case against Uniloc, he should comprehensively defeat it's points basing his counter arguments on plain old common sense. It's evident to me that the phone provider and communication provider have to provide some form of protocol that transfers the account details to Mojang's Minecraft login servers securely, and that Mojang are only able to use these protocols because the phone provider and communication provider already agreed to allow this by registering Mojang's Minecraft login servers and allowing them to use a certain protocol. If the phone provider and communication provider did so unlawfully, then just maybe there would be a case for Uniloc to argue but I certainly can't see why it's Mojang who have to defend themselves in this case.
Cheers ...
BrickVoid
1. They're doing it for the money
... Well, yeah. That's why you would sue people, lawl.
2. They said Mindcraft, not Minecraft
Just goes to show that some people are horribly stupid and helpless. This will show everyone that they're just a bunch of scammers and will try their best to bring them down. I hope Uniloc gets the money from a game that really doesn't exist.
Bottom line, money is the root of all evil, and this is a prime example, and the comments so far reflect that.
Why must every company come up with a "reason" to sue Mojang?<_<
Like what the h*ll!
These company's sue Mojang because Mojang is becoming richer by the second (look at the slow,rising number of people buying Minecraft on minecraft.net).
What a world we all live in.
there you go...its further down the page.