Patent Lawsuit against Xplane

J

jesse

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
16,086
Location
...
Display Name
Jesse
Home Airfield
...
http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/

What oh so important patent are they violating?
”Laminar Research 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, X-Plane.”
Click to expand...
Speaking for Laminar Research, we used only the technology that was provided to us by Google for copy protection in our Android App ‘X-Plane’… we used exactly the copy protection Google gave us! And, of course, this is what Google provides to EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS MAKING A GAME FOR ANDROID!
Click to expand...

This is just so out of control.
 
denverpilot said:
Ya take all the fun out of it, Bob. Haha. I just let 'me come to the realization on their own. It sticks better and the look on their faces is priceless. :)
Click to expand...

I apologize.
 
It wasn't Apple that filed the patent suit this time? :rolleyes:
 
Sounds like this is an issue that Google should fight.
 
I tried to argue the point here a year or so ago, but quite a few members postulated that patents promote innovation. NO THEY DON'T. It's a myth.

Patents are out of control even in biotech and pharma, which are often brought up as fields where patents "work". Even before the gene patents exploded in their faces, the established interestes used patents to squeeze the consumer. It's just that any contrary voices had no weight, with the MSM firmly in control back then.
 
Last edited:
Patent lawsuits are the gold rush of the information age.
 
A lot of these tech patents issues I see do appear to be going overboard. I say appear because I don't necessarily understand what it is that is trying to be protected. Is it truly proprietary or is it something that is in the public domain.

I do think patents serve a purpose. If you spend a ton of money developing a process or product why should a competitor be able to just come in and reap the benefit of your hard work, investment and risk incurred?

Again not commenting on this patent issue as I can't figure out what they are trying to protect.

If I come up with the idea of using a hose to water your garden then the specific design of the hose should be protected IMHO but the idea of using A HOSE to water your garden should not and I think that is what is happening a lot.

I have a particular issue with trade marks. I see some celebrities trademarking their kids names. I think that is Fragging ludicrous.

I recall after 9/11 someone ( I think the family) tried or did trademark the phrase "Lets Roll" which was used by the man who tried to stop the flight 93 hijackers. ( A true hero in my book) I remember thinking WTF! Really? I've use that phrase for decades and I'm sure millions of others have as well. Do I now have to change that to "Lets Skedaddle"?
 
Unless you can find me an example of something larger than small claims court where a single man defended a patent against a phalanx of Corporate paid lawyers in one of your fancy Law libraries, they only serve a purpose for those with enough money to defend them, meaning hiring an IP Attorney.

I'd be curious how many IP Attorneys take the little guy's side on contingency, too. I'm guessing, never.

Our legal system has become a game of Texas Hold'em where you have to go "all in" with your business, your house, all your possessions, to stand a chance against a Corporate "entity" made up of all the resources of the people it represents.

We actually make movies to cheer this on TV instead of demanding lawmakers change it.

The Patent system is by and large, bought and paid for by giant entities with plenty of cash. If they can't or don't want to buy your idea, they'll crush you financially via the Court system. If they lose, they'll pay you with a small percentage of the money they made making and selling your idea.
 
AdamZ said:
A lot of these tech patents issues I see do appear to be going overboard. I say appear because I don't necessarily understand what it is that is trying to be protected. Is it truly proprietary or is it something that is in the public domain.

I do think patents serve a purpose. If you spend a ton of money developing a process or product why should a competitor be able to just come in and reap the benefit of your hard work, investment and risk incurred?

Again not commenting on this patent issue as I can't figure out what they are trying to protect.

If I come up with the idea of using a hose to water your garden then the specific design of the hose should be protected IMHO but the idea of using A HOSE to water your garden should not and I think that is what is happening a lot.

I have a particular issue with trade marks. I see some celebrities trademarking their kids names. I think that is Fragging ludicrous.

I recall after 9/11 someone ( I think the family) tried or did trademark the phrase "Lets Roll" which was used by the man who tried to stop the flight 93 hijackers. ( A true hero in my book) I remember thinking WTF! Really? I've use that phrase for decades and I'm sure millions of others have as well. Do I now have to change that to "Lets Skedaddle"?
Click to expand...

Adam -- if any software developer decides to write some extremely simple code to run when you launch their application to see if it's a valid license or not they violate the patent. There is no secret that took a bunch of time to develop--it's a simple process that is brain dead obvious to any software developer. No formula, no ingredient list, no R&D. The only money ever spent on that patent was getting the patent.

It's really no different then being able to patent addition and subtraction, which you obviously cannot do, but people constantly get equally stupid patents in the software world and destroy real legit developers that are simply trying to make a living.
 
There's a part of me that hopes we're soon going to see the "destruction" phase of the mutually assured destruction policy that's been going on in the software patent world for the past coupe decades. I can't believe there will actually be a winner in the mobile device patent war-- the best possible outcome is that someone in a position of power says "enough" and pushes through some sort of patent reform.
 
jesse said:
Adam -- if any software developer decides to write some extremely simple code to run when you launch their application to see if it's a valid license or not they violate the patent. There is no secret that took a bunch of time to develop--it's a simple process that is brain dead obvious to any software developer. No formula, no ingredient list, no R&D. The only money ever spent on that patent was getting the patent.

....
Click to expand...

Jess are they trying to patent a "specific code" or just the act of checking to see if its a valid license. If the code is that simple not sure that it matters but just curious.
 
AdamZ said:
Jess are they trying to patent a "specific code" or just the act of checking to see if its a valid license. If the code is that simple not sure that it matters but just curious.
Click to expand...

The act of checking to see if the license is valid violates the patent.
 
This lawsuit exposes the core problem with software patents - invariably they can only patent a solution, not a machine or process.

Another problem is that the patent office is uninformed. The concept of performing a license check for software was developed some decades ago. To apply this to new computing platform does not constitute an innovation, it is trivial.
 
This is the exact reason I still refuse to use a FlightPrep product, even this long after they ruined a number of great innovations. To claim a patent on "displaying a line on a map" is insane. If it was specific code that was licensed, that's one thing (and valid), but to patent the idea is wrong on so many levels.

To relate it to the medical field - it is akin to patenting the idea that an illness can be cured via a drug, but not the drug itself.

The same thing is happening to Laminar Research. And no one will win except Uniloc.
 
These suits are the reason the rocket-docket court in east Texas has become so popular for IT/IP cases.

denverpilot said:
Unless you can find me an example of something larger than small claims court where a single man defended a patent against a phalanx of Corporate paid lawyers in one of your fancy Law libraries, they only serve a purpose for those with enough money to defend them, meaning hiring an IP Attorney.

I'd be curious how many IP Attorneys take the little guy's side on contingency, too. I'm guessing, never.

Our legal system has become a game of Texas Hold'em where you have to go "all in" with your business, your house, all your possessions, to stand a chance against a Corporate "entity" made up of all the resources of the people it represents.

We actually make movies to cheer this on TV instead of demanding lawmakers change it.

The Patent system is by and large, bought and paid for by giant entities with plenty of cash. If they can't or don't want to buy your idea, they'll crush you financially via the Court system. If they lose, they'll pay you with a small percentage of the money they made making and selling your idea.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top