Uniloc has lost a patent case before, so maybe it can happen again.

 

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/09/record-388-million-verdict-against-microsoft-overturned/

 

The question I have is what caused Mr Meyer to beleive that he could use someone else's IP without paying for it? What caused him to believe that he could use this IP for free?

 

The problem is that in the software world it is essentially impossible to know whether you have infringed on a patent or not. There are simply too many patents for any one person to be able to check all of them. And on top of this, many are very broad, vaguely worded, or obvious (and should not have been granted in the first place), and are abused by the patent owners to basically extort money. Small developers get a nice letter claiming that they infringed on the patent in question with a "friendly" offer to take something like $5,000 as a licence fee to go away. Or the developer can take it to court and pay tens of thousands, or more, in legal fees to prove their innocence. Not a viable option for most small developers as it would bankrupt them.

 

https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims

Austin Meyer and Laminar Research built something tangible - a real product. They offer peripheral employment to a worldwide group of software developers via third-party add-ons. They gave the sim community a CHOICE between an ongoing and ever-evolving sim platform (x-Plane) and a dead product (Flight Simulator X) that is no longer in development and thus ignores ongoing advances in hardware components.

 

The problem is that in the software world it is essentially impossible to know whether you have infringed on a patent or not. There are simply too many patents for any one person to be able to check all of them.

 

Hear, hear! Laminar Research is threatened with death by lawsuit. I challenge anyone to look through a printout of the entire source code of x-Plane and pronounce judgement that every line of code is unequivocally free of any intellectual property infringement.

 

Realistically, this is simply not possible. So a little 5-man shop went from zero to hero and became something. Then the lawyers came. What do you think the outcome will be? By any stretch, the whole situation is bad.

 

Call me a bigot. Call me ignorant. I don't mind. I do mind when something great is threatened by the courts. I do blame the hired guns, and the so called 'justice system' and 'rule of law'. The reality is only those with the deepest pockets are protected. Small to mid-size companies have little choice but to settle as the costs of "winning" the case would bankrupt their firms. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. You get punished financially, even if the jury declares you the winner. By the time the verdict rolls in years later, you've already lost everything you built defending yourself. The only winners are the attorneys who got paid every step of the way on both sides of the case.

 

Cui Bono? Who benefits? If Laminar is bankrupted in this process, what does Uniloc win? What does the flight sim community gain (or lose)?

 

Is this justice?

You really have to love the irony in this case: in trying to protect its own intellectual property (IP), Lamilar Research allegedly stole the intellectual property of Unilock.

<snipped for brevity>

I know virtually nothing about the case, except what I see here and in the flightsim community.

Your last sentence is the only demonstrably true fact in your entire post.

 

It's not terribly complicated at root. Austin used a software solution provided by Google to any Android developer as an integral part of their "Software Development Kit."

 

Why would Austin, or any other Android developer even suspect that Google was not the owner of the patent for this software solution?

Your last sentence is the only demonstrably true fact in your entire post.

 

It's not terribly complicated at root. Austin used a software solution provided by Google to any Android developer as an integral part of their "Software Development Kit."

 

Why would Austin, or any other Android developer even suspect that Google was not the owner of the patent for this software solution?

 

Therein lies the rub - and possible solution. If the SDK was what led to this case being brought, then Google (willingly or unwillingly) should be the ones being sued NOT LAMINAR RESEARCH. Once Google's army shows up on the battlefield, the Taliban will scurry for the caves and the case will collapse. I think Austin may be able to compel Google's participation in this matter. If that succeeds, then I believe Austin will survive and we will all reap the benefits.

Your last sentence is the only demonstrably true fact in your entire post.

 

It's not terribly complicated at root. Austin used a software solution provided by Google to any Android developer as an integral part of their "Software Development Kit."

 

Why would Austin, or any other Android developer even suspect that Google was not the owner of the patent for this software solution?

 

This is the type of attitude one finds from laymen who are totally ignorant about the law. (And yes, I practiced law for over 25 years. It is not the first time that I have had a client or other layman poo poo my advice -- usually to their regret). You see, most people think that the law is designed to protect them from the predations of corporate America, when the opposite is usually the case. These peopkle also tend to blieve that corporate America has their best interests at heart, insurance companies always make a just payment on claims, and that doctors and hospitals will treat all sick people who pass through their doors.

 

If your statement is true, Austin may have a claim against Google. (Good luck there!) But it does not give him a defense against Unilock. As far as Unilock may be concerned, Google stole their IP and included it with their SDK without their permission and without securing the payment of royalties. However, Google may not have had the legal authority to authorize software developers to use Unilock's IP without paying royalties If this is Austin's defense, he will lose the case. The good news is he will not need to spend $1.5 million in attorneyes fees to lose it.

 

By the way, a similar shakedown takes place with small businesses all the tiem. Say, you own a store, a restaurant, a bar, a gym, a coffee shop or other business where the public is invited. To make the place more inviting, you tune in a local radio station. One day, a man from BMI or ASCAP show up claiming that you are making a public performance of music owned by his clients. He demands that you purchase a license to use that music, or face a lawsuit. The business owner thought that because the music was being played over the radio, he was free to turn on the radio in his business without paying royalties. He was wrong, and now that he has been busted, he has to pay the price.

 

Please do not mistake me in assuming that I like or approve of the current state of IP law. I think it is a case of corporate America beating up on the rest of us -- they have found another clever way to rip us off. There are enough corrupt politicians (who tend to be Republicans) who are more than happy to help them do it. However, since this is the anniversary of the defeat of SOPA and PIPA, we know that the bad guys don't always win. They just win most of the time. (And those trial lawyers you hate so much are the only people protecting you from these guys -- and they hate these crooks more than you do.)

The business owner thought that because the music was being played over the radio, he was free to turn on the radio in his business without paying royalties. He was wrong, and now that he has been busted, he has to pay the price.

 

That is a much more cut and dry case though. If the owner had taken a few minutes to look into it, he would very likely have found out that he needed to be paying royalties or licence fees. With software patents it has become impossible to know if one is infringing or not. You could spend years looking and would still be guaranteed to miss several that could be used against you.

I'm hoping for a good outcome for Laminar.

I seriosly doubt that Unilock wants to kill X-Plane. They probably don't give a damn. What they do want to do is set up a troll bridge on the road of commerce and collect tolls. If they kill X-Plane, they cannot collect those tolls.

 

Austin just needs to learn the corporate shell game. By this, he sets up a new corporation, sells X-Plane and Laminar's trademarks and name to the new corporation and lets the old Laminar go bankrupt. If he is smart, he allows a spousal unit or friend set up the new corporation. Quite honestly, X-Plane itself is relatively worthless without Austin to maintain it. He will need a clever lawyer to do this for him, one versed in commercial transactions. It will cost far less than litigation. He just needs to play from the same rulebook Unilock is using,

 

What he is doing right now with his petitions and media campaign is a form of legal mastubation, which does not accomplish anything, but which feels good. I am sure that his lawyer, if he is worth his salt, has told him to knock it off.

 

As far as blaming the lawyers for this, youy might as well blame the construction people who built Unilock's headquarters. They are just as responsible as the lawyers.

 

If you look at the kids going into law school, some of them got a C in undergraduate chemistry and could not get into med school. But the vast majority have visions of going into international sports law, or some other field which does not exist, But almost all talk about improving society, About 10% will get corrupted and work for biglaw, where they will represent scumbags like Unilock. But most work for government where they dedicate themselves to public service, or they go to work for small firms which experience the same problems as any small buisiness, These guys really do watch your back whether you want to beiieve it or not. Austin needs to start listening to them,

Austin needs to start listening to them,

 

Or he needs to keep pushing, along with many others in the software world to have the problem fixed. This isn't a case where everyone just needs to play along and everything will be fine. It is becoming an onerous burden on software and hi-tech development. Going along with one patent troll just invites others to take advantage of you. Before you know it, you'll be paying out all of your profits to third parties.

 

The software world is slowly waking up and trying to find solutions.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/ces-looks-for-solutions-to-the-patent-troll-toll/

This is the type of attitude one finds from laymen who are totally ignorant about the law.

I may even agree with your recent observations, but that was not really my point. The post to which I replied insinuated - no more than insinuated - baldly asserted that Austin had, with apparent greed and malice aforethought, knowingly "stole" UNILOC's so-called patented algorithim.

 

Such was uncalled for, and I simply wished to call you out on this oblique attempt to smear some sleaze where it was unwarranted.

 

If I were to buy goods from someone selling from the trunk of their car that turned out to be stolen, then I am quite likely to be charged and even convicted for receiving stolen goods. There would be no reasonable expectation of legitimacy in such a transaction!

 

On the other hand, were I to have unknowingly purchased what turned out to be stolen goods from a reputable brick and mortar store such as Wal-Mart, would that not provide at least a positive defense? After all, I would have had reasonable expectation of legitimacy in the transaction.

It is an interesting one, there are a couple points that have me thinking.

 

The first and obvious one is why has google not done something? Apple, when a similar thing happened because developers were using the IOS API told all developers that they would be indemnified and apple would take the patent trolls on.

 

This is what I would expect from apple or google who should be thinking from a business perspective that they need to protect their interests and their interests include having developers free to develop software that they can clip the ticket on and that also keep their eco system alive.

 

The second interesting point is why is he fighting it in the interim? I certainly have principals and some of them I would like to think I would stick by. This is a business decision. I am not sure for something like this I would risk my business as has been implied in this thread.

 

I know right now he is asking for a petition to be signed, in the past he has asked for donations. Does anyone have any idea what the real cost of licensing this is? $5000, $50,000, $0.50c per copy sold?

 

I would hate to pay it but I would put my business ahead of other concerns. If LR went out of business it would be, to a large degree, based on bad business decisions.

My guess is that he's calling attention to it in an attempt to try it in the court of public opinion, which I couldn't even begin to guess on how effective it would be. It has helped to educate me a little bit about the issue. I'd heard of patent trolling before, but never really gave it serious thought. I guess I figured since I wasn't in any position to have to worry about a patent troll coming after me, that it wasn't my problem.

I am sorry you read that in my initial post. As I said, I really don't know what happened. I was not there and cannot read Austin's mind.

 

It seems possible, but unlikely, that Google would include someone else's software in their SDK without having secured the rights to ue it. If this were the case, I would expect Unilock to go after Google, because they are the fatter target. I don't know what agreements were between Google and Unilock and what may have been contained in the fine print. But outfits like Google do have legal teams which do tend to vet these things.

 

I don't know what representations had been made to Laminar and by whom.

 

Someone, somewhere, however, did not do due dilligence in checking things out.

 

I do think that calling Unilock a "patent troll" is a loaded term that an infringing party wouild be expected to use. It seems that their conduct is perfectly legal, suggesting your real issue is with IP law in general. After all, Unilock has won cases against the likes of Microsoft.

 

Perhaps, part of the answer is that IP should remain with it's original creator and that it cannot be owned by a corporation or other non-living or fictitious entity? That the rights to IP cannot be assigned or inherited. Unfortunately, software today has many creators.

 

Perhaps we don't like the notion that a corporation can hire software developers and claim, the fruit of their labor, Perhaps we don't like the notion that a corporation can purchase the IP of another developer -- of course, Microsoft does it all the time. Perhaps we don't like the notion that a corporation simply sits on its IP and never uses it? Perhaps we don't like the notion that a corporation si mply wants to license its IP to others who might have a use for it? Perhaps we believe that IP is too easy to claim? Perhaps we believe that IP has strayed from its purpose of encouraging literary and scientific developmnts, and has morphed into som sort of strange and malign property right?

 

I think the problem is more basic: we are using 18th century doctrines, patents and copyrights, to deal with 21st century problems. This is compounded by the fact this has become special interest legislation. When the likes of Sony and Disney draft laws like this, they are only interested in protecting their interests, and have little concern about how these laws impact other people. (And make no mistake here, the big money boys actually draft these laws.)

 

But it is interesting seeing people who normally get on their high horse and preach about the evils of software piracy sing an entirely different song when they see these laws burning them.

I don't think it's unrealistic or unfair to name Uniloc for what they are: Patent Trolls. They claim to own the patent on what ultimately is a process, not a specific code as such, but simply an idea.

 

Process Patents (aka: Business Method Patents) are frankly rediculous, and should never have been allowed to begin with. I noted this comment in the ArsTechica article to be particularly apt:

Lee Cheng, Chief Legal Officer of online retailer Newegg, had tougher words.

 

"A troll is a type of entity that doesn't sell a product, or transfer value of any sort," said Cheng. "All they offer is the right to not be sued. It's protection money. To put it bluntly, it's extortion."

Signed! Hope Laminar gets through it without a scratch.

 

KK