Scratch

The_Blue_E wrote:

Uniloc is neither innovative nor an asset to any technological development in any realm. The opacity and ambiguity of your website belies this fact with little doubt.

You reference America on your front page, despite being based in Luxembourg. You fail to acknowledge the existence of your American branch on your webpage. This shows a complete lack of insight or forethought, and may cause visitors of your page to be perplexed or bewildered at the contradiction. I'm not even going to bother addressing many of the portions of the website due to the absolutely undeniable fact that they're a pathetic effort at making the appearance of having PR. Everything is dated in 2010, and is of such little importance or significance

In failing to post news articles regarding any developments, you've shown that you don't care about being a driving force in the software industry. In fact, the only thing you've proven you can do is patent things (and not even this, as the patent became property of the company after the fact) and file lawsuits. Are you developing technology? No. Are you facilitating software security? No. Any company could easily do either of these things just as easily, while being constructive to innovation rather than destructive. All you can do, by your own admission, is patent ideas and reap the rewards: "Uniloc focuses on R&D, development and licensing of its technology by a large portfolio of intellectual property (IP) and software." Now, I can read. This is obviously a thinly veiled admission that you thrive solely off of licensing and settlements (hereafter referred to as "tribute"). You state that "One of the ways companies work with us is by licensing our software. It’s more efficient than self-development, and does offer the advantage of a device recognition methodology that has been patented, battle tested and proven effective." This is a wordy way of saying you're too lazy to spend any amount of effort actually developing your ideas into workable products, and that you believe companies should pay you money, while they do all the work, rather than using a software module or system of your own development. Do you expect to garner respect and renown? Of course not, but money always comes first in this corporate world after all.

If you want to make money off of an idea, an IP item, then it had better be a darn well original one. Device recognition and software activation keys are neither very original ideas nor particularly contrived. They are both logical extensions of the digital age; the ownership of a patent concerning either is such a ridiculous idea that it could only be birthed by bureaucratically inclined scoundrels. There isn't even conclusive evidence that your associate was the first to think of it; the idea of proving thoughts is ludicrous.

What other things have you innovated? Your website claims that you are finding "big ideas", yet the evidence of a single truly innovative idea in a period of almost two decades is nonexistant. As mentioned, the "innovation" of software keys is even cast in doubt, as many software items use the software key system but owe nothing to you.

Your device recognition technology has done little to nothing in stopping piracy. Googling the names of your clients' software and the word "crack" or "keygen" yield plenty of results where your product has been entirely unsatisfactory, if it could even be called a product! Its only purpose would then be to inconvenience users who are wrongly victimized by the system you supposedly innovated. Yet you don't even have a products page on your website, because that would imply plurality, as well as the fact that one patent can even be considered a "product", and that would be misleading. For twenty years, your company has done nothing but protect its supposed property in order to hoard money from unsuspecting companies who license your ineffective services or heaven forbid, attempt to make their own software security system. You claim to protect your clients' tribute money, but fail to secure the majority of lawsuits you file. This shows both poor legal judgment, and desperation to secure settlements from large corporations, as well as false promises.

It's no coincidence that your Wikipedia page lists "Patent Troll" under Related Pages. One of my favorite quotes from your blog is as follows: "Now, I am by no means a spammer, but I’m guessing that spammers try to make as much money as they can without incurring great costs." Alright, perfectly reasonable statement. Allow me to issue my own: "Now, I am by no means a patent troll, but I’m guessing that patent trolls try to make as much money as they can without incurring great costs." I think that's a perfectly reasonable judgment, and regarding the above evidence that your company is attempting to avoid as much effort, innovation, and investment as possible to acquire capital from a single patent and related frivolous lawsuits, I would thereby classify your company as a patent troll, and I do not believe that many would argue with that conclusion.

I am very disappointed in your bogus claims to innovation and your frivolous lawsuits which make a mockery of the justice system.

o many, the name "Uniloc" doesn't mean much - however, that will likely change in the coming days.  Uniloc is suing Mojang for allegedly infringing on the company's patent.  What patent is allegedly being infringed?

Quote
a system and method ... for preventing unauthorized access to electronic data stored on an electronic device.

It is not known at this time what, if anything, this means for Mojang.  Of note, Markus "Notch" Persson has certainly voiced his opinion on the matter, stating that he "will throw piles of money at making sure they don't get a cent".  Little else is known about the lawsuit at this time.

Notch has made the lawsuit PDF available for viewing, which you can see by clicking here.  He has also posted a detailed write-up on his perspective on software patents - you can view it by clicking here.

Uniloc appears to be suing numerous other gaming producers allegedly violating this patent, including Square Enix, Electronic Arts and others.

Any further specifics of the case will be covered as they develop.

UPDATE:  Ric Richardson has posted his views on the situation as well, which you can read by clicking here.  It is important to note that Mr. Richardson has had no direct part in the lawsuit of Uniloc vs. Mojang.


This is silly! This lawsuit is a very silly reason to sue Mojang AB.

Add a stop uniloc signature to your forum!

We already have a topic on this subject - closing this one.