And they get away with this stuff all the time. So if Notch is really going to fight this, he’s very much the hero of the story.

The other thing is that patents are often misunderstood, but even the system is a broken on several levels. First thing is that a patent covers not an idea, but a very specific implementation of an idea. If your licensing server is done a little differently than the one claimed by the patent, that patent simply doesn’t apply. One reason for the confusion is the construct of the patent. When filed, there’s a description of the invention, and there’s a set of claims. The PTO judges the patent entirely on the description of the invention, checking that the claims are supported by the main body of the patent. Once granted, patent lawyers sue based on the claims, which are of course written to sound like they cover everything, but in reality, they’re only as good as the actual invention. 

It’s worse with most software patents… one reason they really shouldn’t exist. If I patent a machine, I need to submit very accurate mechanical drawings, or I might not have a valid patent. If I patent a circuit, I must include a schematic of that circuit. But in the USA anyway, software patents no longer require disclosure of the source code. So you don’t really know the preferred embodiment of the invention, but something intentionally made more general. Most of these should be tossed out just on that basis. 

The software activation technique in question was patented in 1992 by an Australian inventor. There was a recent episode of Australian Story which talks about him and the trial against Microsoft. The transcript is available online.

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2012/s3473536.htm

So, I believe the origins of the patent in question date back to 1992. That’s a bit different to 2005 (or even 2001); the portfolio of prior art would be significantly smaller.

Makes for an interesting read. While I have to cheer the fellow for winning a long-running battle against Microsoft, the fact that the company is going after everyone, and they’re apparently based in Luxembourg (tax evasion ahoy!), makes me think they’re a bit sleazy. So the whole story leaves me feeling ambivalent.

I wonder if the patent trolls have to pay the victims court costs and expenses IF the troll looses?  If not, and I doubt that they do,  then the laws should be changed so that they must.    That should about level out that extortion racket and put the bogus claims out of business.

When Notch says he is willing to sink a huge amount of money to make sure you get nothing, he means it, and he has the bank account to back his words up. Mojang is a small but very rich company — and I’m certain that’s why these scum lawyered up.

In Geneva, and just about everywhere else except the USA, Uniloc could end up paying Notch’s attorney fees if they lose the case. As it works now, the US civil system makes it easier to intimidate someone into a settlement, even with frivolous claims. There are variations on the state level, but for the most part they are one-sided: only the defendant may end up paying the plaintiff’s fees, not the other way around.

Imagine if  google.com visited from a Texas IP address said ‘You are barred from using Google services because of your fucked up East Texas Patent Troll Havens.’

It’s a strength in numbers thing. If one company did that, they would look bad. If many companies started doing it, it would put significant pressure on east texas; esp if there were a case where a government was denied a crucial software for this reason.

Sure, they would lose money and market share. But they possibly lose less than they are losing in these cases.

I’m gonna patent shoes. I just invented them, foot covering to keep the feet warm and protected.

And I’m going to get an injunction to keep all these douchebags from wearing them.

They won’t let you walk in a courtroom barefoot, right?

Checkmate.

If the suit is dismissed without prejudice (that is, if the judge says “this was reasonable but incorrect,”) then what happens varies by state, and is often left entirely up to the judge.

Patents are Federal law. Lawsuits under Federal patent law are brought in Federal courts. “What happens” is determined by Federal procedure, and has nothing to do with state law or state procedure. I’m afraid you simply do not know what you are talking about.

The number of times that a patent lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice is vanishingly small. The overwhelmingly large majority of cases that go to trial end up with each side paying their own costs.

It’s really not hard to find out about the Berne Conventions.

Indeed not, and when you do, you find out that it is about copyright, not patents.

It does not cost $50,000 to invalidate a bad patent.

True. It can often cost several times that.

The Texas district in question is urban, highly educated, and skin color diverse, actually.

This explains why patent trolls are so eager to file there; they are doing their part for diversity.

This is entirely up to the judge. 

If the suit is dismissed with prejudice – that is, if the judge says “you should have known better, you’re being a dick,” the plaintiff pays, and sometimes pays damages too (typically trebled.)  If the suit is dismissed without prejudice (that is, if the judge says “this was reasonable but incorrect,”) then what happens varies by state, and is often left entirely up to the judge.

It is very uncommon that an innocent person has to pay to defend themselves against commercial claims of intent.

“this won’t prevent the troll to continue gaming the system”

Generally, when a patent is ruled against with prejudice, there is a serious risk that the judge will also choose to invalidate the patent itself, thereby not only negating that party’s ability to go to new action, but also invalidating old claims held.  Being an actual troll very often carries the risk of serious and permanent loss of already held claims.  It’s just that the public media knows that the masses will come running when someone rings the patent troll dinner bell, so everyone and everything is a patent troll now.

(Granted, in this specific case, the label fits, but it usually doesn’t, kind of like when people talk about model view controller or startups or agile or lean.)

There’s also a real problem with you suggesting that this is a form of gaming the system.  It isn’t.  You just don’t understand the system.  Pursuing people for the inappropriate pilfering of held intellectual property is the purpose of the system; making inappropriately strong claims isn’t “gaming” in any meaningful sense.

They’re just bullies taking advantage of the general public’s confusion about what patents are and how they work.

Hope Mojang files for a change of venue in any case.

> Yes.  There is.  It’s called “the court system.”  The US patent system was never meant to be adjudicated by the patent office.

IANAL, but my understanding is that the court system is not enough. Even when one’s patent is ruled invalid by the court in a case, it does not prevent the patent owner to sue others over the same patent. They will eventually loose, but the defendants will still have to pay for the lawsuits. And pay for a second lawsuit if they want to get some money back from the patent troll. And again, this won’t prevent the troll to continue gaming the system and try to get money from companies which are afraid of a lawsuits or can just not afford it.

Something like “small fry” is perhaps what you were thinking of.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_99.htm

“I wonder if we could crowdsource prior art for every patent they hold and gut the troll.”

This … is a very interesting suggestion.