Mindcraft, does it mean that it will nullify the case eventually?
no, because it says "including but not limited to"
that extends it to all mojang products.
however, Mojang has a strong case, as the patent is extremly vauge. the patent just says it covers an idea for a cellular security user verification system. and uniloc is suing a lot of other people over it, but considering the patent, why not sue apple and the cell-phone providers who actually use it?
im not trying to be the bad guy but if this is saying what i believe its saying. (the pdf) its saying that game makers dont have permission to sell their products using the cell towers provided in texas. if this is true, then maybe, just maybe, these TEXANS have something going for them. except, its STUPID. but hey, if no one signed papers its on them. (yet i say again, stupid) im sorry markuss but your poket edition android app may have gotten you sued just because you didnt sign a paper stating that your game can be sent to phones through DATA PLANS. god, **** texas
dont be hatin on texas just because what someone did,im texan D: but this lawsuit is ridiculous if they are suing square enix and mojang I BE HATIN especially what its for(WTH is MINDcraft? its MINEcraft)
This makes no sense, I always thought that you could in fact not claim legal rights to an *idea* only just a certain copy of whatever that idea created.
You are confusing different kinds of laws with each other. Not surprising because neither news reporters nor even most school teachers understand these laws very well. There is most certainly a difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
Mojang owns the copyright to Minecraft, but not a patent to the concept of a voxel-based sandbox game. Mojang also owns the trademark to the name "Minecraft", so if you produce another game that allows you to place blocks to make stuff and call it "Minecraft", you are infringing upon Mojang's trademark for this game.
As an example, it was the same with the Bethesda lawsuit. They wanted to sue over a word mainly due to the fact that it might "confuse" people.
Bethesda was trying to enforce the trademark on their game called "Elder Scrolls", where Mojang was writing another game called simple "Scrolls". Frankly, I think this particular lawsuit by Bethesda had merit and it was necessary because a lack of enforcement of trademarks has those terms turned into generic terms. An example of a former trademark that has become "generic" is "elevator", which used to apply to the brand name of a lifting device manufactured by the Otis Company (Now called the Otis Elevator Company). They are still in business BTW, but the name of their product now is commonly used for any similar device.
The purpose of a trademark is to let people know who actually made the device or in the case of software actually wrote the thing. If you are claiming to have something made by one person but in fact it is made by somebody totally different, that is fraud and legally speaking a kind of lie that should have your face slapped if you do something like that. For example, if you have a pair of blue denim pants and claim they are made by Levi Strauss (aka "Levi's") but in fact were made by some company in China out of cheaper materials, you aren't telling the truth about what it is that you have.
There certainly is room to say that a box with the game "Elder Scrolls" might be confused with a similar box titled simply "Scrolls". At least that was the point of the lawsuit and what Bethesda was asserting. In fact in the settlement Bethesda simply gave a license to Mojang to make a game called "Scrolls" in a way that still doesn't dilute the Bethesda trademark. If I made another game and called it "Scrolls", I would be violating the trademarks of both Mojang and Bethesda. That certainly is not cool or right.
It has been my understanding that if you own a patent to a certain type of software, that patent only deals with the software it's self and not what the software does.
You are thinking copyright here again. Mojang owns the copyright on Minecraft, so if you have a version of Minecraft you are not authorized to give a copy of that game to a friend or relative. In other words only Mojang has the "right to copy" (aka "copyright") the software. This applies to books and movies as well and is the same principle. The ideas in those books, movies, or games are free to be reused if you write something else from scratch (with some limits), but you can't just copy those materials and pretend that you wrote them or simply give them away.
A patent is something different though. It says that you have come up with something unique that nobody has thought of before (and there is an extensive review process that supposedly makes sure nobody else has come up with that idea before) and after explaining in detail how that device works (note it is a device we are talking about... more on that in a bit) the government grants you an exclusive right to make anything even remotely like that device. If somebody else makes that device, they are violating the patent.
The problem is where computer software is being used that gets real confusing, and gets into the issue of software patents. A mathematical formula is explicitly not permitted to be patented. Electronic circuits on the other hand can be patented because they are a physical device that requires manufacturing skill in order to make them.
Now I'm going to get into Minecraft terms here that I hope some can relate to here. Think of some of the Redstone devices you may have seen players make in the game. They can do all sorts of nifty things including make chicken cookers, mob grinders, transportation devices, and so on. In theory all of these devices that players make using Redstone could even be patented by some enterprising player who wants to be a real jerk to the Minecraft player community. Here is where it gets sort of weird: All of these devices, while in theory they can be physically created, all exist in a virtual computer world that is ultimately only software. The same thing can also be said about "real world" circuits that are put on programmable devices like a FPGA (field-programmable gate array) or other programmable logic devices.
Ultimately, computer software can be written in the form of electronic circuits, or any electronic circuit can be emulated or simulated in a computer using only software. I don't know who would be so stupid to even try it, but you could in theory build a massive world using Redstone circuits that would be able to "run" Microsoft Windows or even simply be Microsoft Windows for all practical purposes. I'm not saying that it would be emulating the Intel Pentium CPU, but rather the operating system software itself in raw Redstone circuits. You might be hitting the far lands by the time you are done and would take a million years for it to be built, but it could be done.
Because of this weird sort of mash-up between computer software and electronic circuits is where software patents come in, and in this case the lawsuit against Mojang. Uniloc has been supposedly granted a patent on the ability to verify the licensing of computer software on mobile devices. Since Mojang has a computer game they have written for mobile devices that requires you to log in to the Mojang servers and verify that you have paid for a copy of Minecraft (the Minecraft mobile device app), it is being asserted that Mojang is in violation of that patent.
Mojang can claim a few things here though to say it doesn't apply to them. First, they can say that the way they are verifying users have a valid copy of Minecraft is somehow different than what the Uniloc patent claims to be about. Also, Mojang could attempt to prove that the patent was issued to Uniloc in error and that it shouldn't have been granted in the first place... because it wasn't a unique idea and wasn't really anything original in the first place. Mojang could also assert jurisdiction issues, in other words claiming that by being in Sweden that American law doesn't apply to them... but that issue doesn't really fly as Mojang does sell copies of Minecraft to people in the USA, and in particular to people in the cities of Houston and Austin, Texas (aka "eastern Texas").
I hope that cleans things up for you a bit. For myself, I think Uniloc is nuts for filing this lawsuit and it may come back and bite them hard. I think Texas has a barratry law which could make Mojang owning Uniloc when all is said and done here as well. In other words if the Uniloc lawyers can be found to knowingly file a lawsuit that has no legal merit to even be heard, they could go to prison for abusing the legal system. That supposedly stops lawyers from filing a lawsuit based upon stuff that is made up and nonsense.
It will be a fun couple of years while Mojang plows through this lawsuit. Similar kinds of lawsuits have taken as much as 12-15 years to work their way through the court system, so I certainly don't expect this to be resolved any time soon unless Notch capitulates and pays Uniloc the licensing fee (*cough* extortion payments *cough*).
Mindcraft, does it mean that it will nullify the case eventually?
No. That is for all practical purposes meaningless and can be attributed to a clerical error. It would take even a stupid lawyer (somebody with a really low IQ) a whole 5 minutes or so in front of a judge to clean up, and would be highly doubtful that Mojang would even protest that from happening. If the name mis-spelling remains until after the judgement is rendered, that would be a different story however. Don't get hung up on this one issue because it is won't impact the case at all.
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
God, whoever typed it like that deserves to go die in a hole
Uniloc started in Australia and moved to the U.S. They've sued many (73) companies for violating it's patents, but only twenty five of those settled. They even sued Microsoft. Uniloc, yes, started out as a nice, legitimate company. Since then, they've become a parasite latching onto any company that even remotely uses what they used.
I'd also like to point out, patents usually last twenty years. Uniloc was invented and patented twenty years ago.
Well that might change, see Notch's remark on twitter: I'd rather stop selling our games in the US than to continue be at the mercy of their messed up legal system.
And I really wonder why this does not happen more often, I know of at least one Dutch company that refuses to sell their products (bikes) to US customers, not because of patents but because of the, just as silly, claims culture in the US. And if I were a software producer I would not sell my products in the US. I even wonder why eg. Samsung still wants to sell their goods in the US, the rest of the world is big enough.
But anyway, I really hope that Mojang decides to stop selling Minecraft in the US, it would get them at least a lot of attention. Notch's remark already got noticed by Groklaw (www.groklaw.net) an important site dedicated to educate people about the law and patents in particular.
The problems with abandoning the U.S. market is that it is so huge that it is hard to ignore. For things like video games, it can be the difference between staying profitable and not. Basically for a mass produced consumer product (which is the case of Minecraft), throwing away literally half of your market simply for political reasons is a tough choice to make.
Comparing software companies which sell to a mass audience to a bicycle manufacturer who makes custom bikes is not even really comparing the same thing. They may not need to sell to America as the competition on an international scale is much harder and there are logistical issues where the actual number of sales they will lose by refusing to sell to Americans is so minor they can dismiss it anyway. This particular company (since we are dealing with hypothetical comparisons as you haven't said what company it is) is likely at their manufacturing capacity anyway, so selling a few hundred bikes a year to America isn't worth the hassle.
Since I happen to live in America, it is a bit harder for me to walk away from selling to my own country where the laws would still apply to me anyway (even if I left and renounced citizenship, it would still take several years for me to get out of those kind of lawsuits easily). Still, I can understand why there might be some concern.
The reason why Samsung sells their stuff to America is precisely because of the size of the market. Ditto for many other companies. If you want to sell stuff here, you have to play by the rules that are here. The same applies to selling items in other countries, that all have their own little quirks about what you can do and how you can earn money by engaging in international trade. For the purposes of trade, you can't say that trade within the EU is really international anymore so I'm talking about what it takes for somebody in the EU to sell to a country like Pakistan or India or to other places with very different cultures, traditions, and laws. Perhaps you don't deal with the litigious nature of the American business climate (something that is discussed frequently in domestic political discussions here in America too I should note) but instead have to deal with flagrant corruption or having the government simply taking your inventory or refusing to let you bring the money you got from your customers in that country to some place outside of the country. If you want to see how weird that can get, see how Pepsi Cola was able to sell their soft drink in the former Soviet Union.
The one fly in the ointment for this kind of action by Notch, however, is that this same troll could come to Europe and try to file a lawsuit in the EU instead, perhaps even on the same patent. The laws are different in the EU, and I'm not sure if this particular patent would even qualify for protection in any EU country (likely not... I don't think it qualifies even under U.S. law), but refusing to settle or do any business in America may not work either. Since the business headquarters for this company isn't even in the USA but rather in Luxembourg, that would give them standing in EU courts as well... I'd dare say a stronger claim than even filing for a lawsuit in Texas.
Would Notch be content to sell his software to just Sweden, Russia, and China?
after reading the copy online about why they are suing mojang, I think uniloc is in the wrong. they are suing them for an incredibly vague reason, And going after multiple companies where only a handful of them have settled. their reasoning is murky and incredibly convoluted.
I doubt they will win this battle.
You are pretty much ignoring my point there, that you are trying to be a **** who is complaining that an asshole Well, what am I? A **** or an asshole?
like you has wasted 25 dollars for using the Mojang's users, servers and launcher to play Minecraft, I bought it in Beta, so it didn't cost that much.
when there are better ways which are free and are not technically pirated. How does that work? That's still considered piracy and still illegal! I cannot respect you for it.
Furthermore, I am not spending my life reading posts and responding to them to simply start a flame war, Not really a flame war.
I am responding to a person which is accusing me of pirating Minecraft, when that is impossible as they have their own login servers which will not allow anybody to play Minecraft if they do not login. You technically don't have to log in, and you can crack Minecraft. And you technically did pirate it.
Also, bolded text neither gives any strength to your point, you are simply outlining your text from the rest of other people, trying to show how superior you are over other people thinking *hahaha my text is fatter than theirs, it must be better*. I use bold to differentiate it from the original text in the quote. It might get confusing otherwise.
To me It looks like a company who made a patent very obscure and they're just using it to sue sue sue and the gov. needs to some how revoke the patent simple as that
To me It looks like a company who made a patent very obscure and they're just using it to sue sue sue and the gov. needs to some how revoke the patent simple as that
All software patents should be revoked. They ruin electronics for everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's hard criticizing ideas when one is tired, so you'd better appreciate it when I criticize yours.
Well, That wasn't a very smart move. Now all Mojang supporters hate Uniloc. :/
And Uniloc is sueing many other game companies. That, was not very smart at all.
Uniloc might as well sue everyone with security if its a security system.
The're sueing a famous game company, and i'm pretty sure the patent is outdated or
something. so in the end, its 100% failure.
No money for you!
I don't hate Ric, I hate the guy who sued mojang for the stupidest reason ever.
"Pheww. The reaction to the Mojang story is just going through the roof. over 8,000 visitors just to my site. Its amazing to see so many people loyal to this game maker. Good on him.
But guys please be fair.
1. I am not the inventor of the patent in question.
2. The personal attacks are a bit much don't you think?
3. Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented and letting you have a fair shot at making a living from it. If Uniloc wants to test this in court it is there prerogative, the same way that Mojang contested the use of the copyright term "Scrolls" and took people to court."
the parts that i think were just dumb i put in bold
Still I would like Mojang to stick to this "promise" of leaving the US market, at least all the current Minecraft fans will notice and make some noise. It may help a tiny bit to show the American public that the US patent system really is a horrible mess.
Notch went back on what he said about not selling in the US.
When he said he wouldn't be selling games in the US anymore, it felt like it was a knee-jerk reaction to the lawsuit.
In all honesty, it got me infuriated with Uniloc, which was probably the intended result.
Plus who in the hell patents software? I've heard of specially made bowls and other trinkets being patented, but software?
I'm from the US and I never knew you could do that, seeing as software isn't physical.
no, because it says "including but not limited to"
that extends it to all mojang products.
however, Mojang has a strong case, as the patent is extremly vauge. the patent just says it covers an idea for a cellular security user verification system. and uniloc is suing a lot of other people over it, but considering the patent, why not sue apple and the cell-phone providers who actually use it?
They Spelled it Mindcraft.
Really.
dont be hatin on texas just because what someone did,im texan D: but this lawsuit is ridiculous if they are suing square enix and mojang I BE HATIN especially what its for(WTH is MINDcraft? its MINEcraft)
You are confusing different kinds of laws with each other. Not surprising because neither news reporters nor even most school teachers understand these laws very well. There is most certainly a difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
Mojang owns the copyright to Minecraft, but not a patent to the concept of a voxel-based sandbox game. Mojang also owns the trademark to the name "Minecraft", so if you produce another game that allows you to place blocks to make stuff and call it "Minecraft", you are infringing upon Mojang's trademark for this game.
Bethesda was trying to enforce the trademark on their game called "Elder Scrolls", where Mojang was writing another game called simple "Scrolls". Frankly, I think this particular lawsuit by Bethesda had merit and it was necessary because a lack of enforcement of trademarks has those terms turned into generic terms. An example of a former trademark that has become "generic" is "elevator", which used to apply to the brand name of a lifting device manufactured by the Otis Company (Now called the Otis Elevator Company). They are still in business BTW, but the name of their product now is commonly used for any similar device.
The purpose of a trademark is to let people know who actually made the device or in the case of software actually wrote the thing. If you are claiming to have something made by one person but in fact it is made by somebody totally different, that is fraud and legally speaking a kind of lie that should have your face slapped if you do something like that. For example, if you have a pair of blue denim pants and claim they are made by Levi Strauss (aka "Levi's") but in fact were made by some company in China out of cheaper materials, you aren't telling the truth about what it is that you have.
There certainly is room to say that a box with the game "Elder Scrolls" might be confused with a similar box titled simply "Scrolls". At least that was the point of the lawsuit and what Bethesda was asserting. In fact in the settlement Bethesda simply gave a license to Mojang to make a game called "Scrolls" in a way that still doesn't dilute the Bethesda trademark. If I made another game and called it "Scrolls", I would be violating the trademarks of both Mojang and Bethesda. That certainly is not cool or right.
You are thinking copyright here again. Mojang owns the copyright on Minecraft, so if you have a version of Minecraft you are not authorized to give a copy of that game to a friend or relative. In other words only Mojang has the "right to copy" (aka "copyright") the software. This applies to books and movies as well and is the same principle. The ideas in those books, movies, or games are free to be reused if you write something else from scratch (with some limits), but you can't just copy those materials and pretend that you wrote them or simply give them away.
A patent is something different though. It says that you have come up with something unique that nobody has thought of before (and there is an extensive review process that supposedly makes sure nobody else has come up with that idea before) and after explaining in detail how that device works (note it is a device we are talking about... more on that in a bit) the government grants you an exclusive right to make anything even remotely like that device. If somebody else makes that device, they are violating the patent.
The problem is where computer software is being used that gets real confusing, and gets into the issue of software patents. A mathematical formula is explicitly not permitted to be patented. Electronic circuits on the other hand can be patented because they are a physical device that requires manufacturing skill in order to make them.
Now I'm going to get into Minecraft terms here that I hope some can relate to here. Think of some of the Redstone devices you may have seen players make in the game. They can do all sorts of nifty things including make chicken cookers, mob grinders, transportation devices, and so on. In theory all of these devices that players make using Redstone could even be patented by some enterprising player who wants to be a real jerk to the Minecraft player community. Here is where it gets sort of weird: All of these devices, while in theory they can be physically created, all exist in a virtual computer world that is ultimately only software. The same thing can also be said about "real world" circuits that are put on programmable devices like a FPGA (field-programmable gate array) or other programmable logic devices.
Ultimately, computer software can be written in the form of electronic circuits, or any electronic circuit can be emulated or simulated in a computer using only software. I don't know who would be so stupid to even try it, but you could in theory build a massive world using Redstone circuits that would be able to "run" Microsoft Windows or even simply be Microsoft Windows for all practical purposes. I'm not saying that it would be emulating the Intel Pentium CPU, but rather the operating system software itself in raw Redstone circuits. You might be hitting the far lands by the time you are done and would take a million years for it to be built, but it could be done.
Because of this weird sort of mash-up between computer software and electronic circuits is where software patents come in, and in this case the lawsuit against Mojang. Uniloc has been supposedly granted a patent on the ability to verify the licensing of computer software on mobile devices. Since Mojang has a computer game they have written for mobile devices that requires you to log in to the Mojang servers and verify that you have paid for a copy of Minecraft (the Minecraft mobile device app), it is being asserted that Mojang is in violation of that patent.
Mojang can claim a few things here though to say it doesn't apply to them. First, they can say that the way they are verifying users have a valid copy of Minecraft is somehow different than what the Uniloc patent claims to be about. Also, Mojang could attempt to prove that the patent was issued to Uniloc in error and that it shouldn't have been granted in the first place... because it wasn't a unique idea and wasn't really anything original in the first place. Mojang could also assert jurisdiction issues, in other words claiming that by being in Sweden that American law doesn't apply to them... but that issue doesn't really fly as Mojang does sell copies of Minecraft to people in the USA, and in particular to people in the cities of Houston and Austin, Texas (aka "eastern Texas").
I hope that cleans things up for you a bit. For myself, I think Uniloc is nuts for filing this lawsuit and it may come back and bite them hard. I think Texas has a barratry law which could make Mojang owning Uniloc when all is said and done here as well. In other words if the Uniloc lawyers can be found to knowingly file a lawsuit that has no legal merit to even be heard, they could go to prison for abusing the legal system. That supposedly stops lawyers from filing a lawsuit based upon stuff that is made up and nonsense.
It will be a fun couple of years while Mojang plows through this lawsuit. Similar kinds of lawsuits have taken as much as 12-15 years to work their way through the court system, so I certainly don't expect this to be resolved any time soon unless Notch capitulates and pays Uniloc the licensing fee (*cough* extortion payments *cough*).
No. That is for all practical purposes meaningless and can be attributed to a clerical error. It would take even a stupid lawyer (somebody with a really low IQ) a whole 5 minutes or so in front of a judge to clean up, and would be highly doubtful that Mojang would even protest that from happening. If the name mis-spelling remains until after the judgement is rendered, that would be a different story however. Don't get hung up on this one issue because it is won't impact the case at all.
Version 2.1 now updated for MC 1.6.2
Seriously, the PDF says "Mindcraft" and that Ric Richardson guy called Mojang "Majong" — 3 times.
Definitely patent trolls.
Although Ric has nothing to do with this and hate mail is not allowed, he still deserves something for referring to Mojang AB as "Majong".
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
God, whoever typed it like that deserves to go die in a hole
I'd also like to point out, patents usually last twenty years. Uniloc was invented and patented twenty years ago.
And come on, they called it Mindcraft.
I love mahjong!
I just saw the tweet: https://twitter.com/notch/status/227667695804497920
The problems with abandoning the U.S. market is that it is so huge that it is hard to ignore. For things like video games, it can be the difference between staying profitable and not. Basically for a mass produced consumer product (which is the case of Minecraft), throwing away literally half of your market simply for political reasons is a tough choice to make.
Comparing software companies which sell to a mass audience to a bicycle manufacturer who makes custom bikes is not even really comparing the same thing. They may not need to sell to America as the competition on an international scale is much harder and there are logistical issues where the actual number of sales they will lose by refusing to sell to Americans is so minor they can dismiss it anyway. This particular company (since we are dealing with hypothetical comparisons as you haven't said what company it is) is likely at their manufacturing capacity anyway, so selling a few hundred bikes a year to America isn't worth the hassle.
Since I happen to live in America, it is a bit harder for me to walk away from selling to my own country where the laws would still apply to me anyway (even if I left and renounced citizenship, it would still take several years for me to get out of those kind of lawsuits easily). Still, I can understand why there might be some concern.
The reason why Samsung sells their stuff to America is precisely because of the size of the market. Ditto for many other companies. If you want to sell stuff here, you have to play by the rules that are here. The same applies to selling items in other countries, that all have their own little quirks about what you can do and how you can earn money by engaging in international trade. For the purposes of trade, you can't say that trade within the EU is really international anymore so I'm talking about what it takes for somebody in the EU to sell to a country like Pakistan or India or to other places with very different cultures, traditions, and laws. Perhaps you don't deal with the litigious nature of the American business climate (something that is discussed frequently in domestic political discussions here in America too I should note) but instead have to deal with flagrant corruption or having the government simply taking your inventory or refusing to let you bring the money you got from your customers in that country to some place outside of the country. If you want to see how weird that can get, see how Pepsi Cola was able to sell their soft drink in the former Soviet Union.
The one fly in the ointment for this kind of action by Notch, however, is that this same troll could come to Europe and try to file a lawsuit in the EU instead, perhaps even on the same patent. The laws are different in the EU, and I'm not sure if this particular patent would even qualify for protection in any EU country (likely not... I don't think it qualifies even under U.S. law), but refusing to settle or do any business in America may not work either. Since the business headquarters for this company isn't even in the USA but rather in Luxembourg, that would give them standing in EU courts as well... I'd dare say a stronger claim than even filing for a lawsuit in Texas.
Would Notch be content to sell his software to just Sweden, Russia, and China?
Version 2.1 now updated for MC 1.6.2
I doubt they will win this battle.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumAnd Uniloc is sueing many other game companies. That, was not very smart at all.
Uniloc might as well sue everyone with security if its a security system.
The're sueing a famous game company, and i'm pretty sure the patent is outdated or
something. so in the end, its 100% failure.
No money for you!
I don't hate Ric, I hate the guy who sued mojang for the stupidest reason ever.
"Pheww. The reaction to the Mojang story is just going through the roof. over 8,000 visitors just to my site. Its amazing to see so many people loyal to this game maker. Good on him.
But guys please be fair.
1. I am not the inventor of the patent in question.
2. The personal attacks are a bit much don't you think?
3. Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented and letting you have a fair shot at making a living from it. If Uniloc wants to test this in court it is there prerogative, the same way that Mojang contested the use of the copyright term "Scrolls" and took people to court."
the parts that i think were just dumb i put in bold
Won't do anything about the US patent system.
Notch went back on what he said about not selling in the US.
When he said he wouldn't be selling games in the US anymore, it felt like it was a knee-jerk reaction to the lawsuit.
In all honesty, it got me infuriated with Uniloc, which was probably the intended result.
Plus who in the hell patents software? I've heard of specially made bowls and other trinkets being patented, but software?
I'm from the US and I never knew you could do that, seeing as software isn't physical.