
Mojang, makers of Minecraft, sued by patent troll - fcatalan
http://notch.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mojang.pdf
======
georgespencer
The patent is here:

[http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067?printsec=abstract#v=...](http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false)

I'd encourage you all to read it.

The majority of the summary, related art and claims are related to "smart
cards". That is: a user plugs a smart card into their computer, which has one
half of a licence key on it, and it then verifies this with a server either
over LAN or the web.

There are a couple of broad claims which could, if upheld, cripple many
systems which work like this (log in to installed software over the web,
essentially).

I think ( _think_ ) they might go on to claim that the SIM has a UID (it does)
which is somehow involved in the process of authing a user for Google's store.
If that's the case, or Google is indeed passing identifiable information from
your phone to your Google account for auth purposes, then that appears to be
covered by the patent, which specifically mentions SIM cards as one potential
alternative "smart card".

What really pisses me off about this is the fact that the patent holders so
clearly conceived of a really terrible piece of technology. It was filed in
2005 at a time when a lot of music software came with hardware decryption
(i.e. an anti-piracy USB key you had to stick in to your computer when using
the software) and they apparently thought that "smart cards" were the way
forward. Turns out they were shit out of luck on that, but in passing they
mentioned something so vague that it inevitably came to pass.

~~~
stonemetal
Does anybody know where to report prior art. The US announced they were going
to use CAC(common access cards) for security in 2000. CACs are smart cards you
have to use to log in to military websites among other things.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Here are some I've bookmarked:

<https://www.eff.org/patent-busting>

Crowd-sourced prior art patent busting:

<http://www.articleonepartners.com/>

There's also PeerToPatent, but it appears to be oriented toward preventing a
patent being granted than busting them after the fact:

<http://peertopatent.org/>

------
Arwill
This is pretty fucked up. So now anyone in the world can expect to be sued in
the US on base of US software patents? How do you release anything in a
situation like this. Then there is the burden of going to a court in Texas?
How in the fuck they expect that a Swedish company hires lawyers in Texas?
Just how much would that cost? Also this is going to beyond any sanity.
Practically you have to stick to some common "protected by a big company"
technology, else you run the risk of inventing something new (on your own),
and running into some broadly worded patent.

This is actually contrary to "protecting innovation". If you actually
innovate, you run the risk inventing something that someone already patented,
and then you are fucked. Under such circumstances its much safer to just not
try to innovate...

~~~
mattmanser
It's because Mojang sells stuff in the US via their website.

I also assume Mojang could just completely ignore it if they have no assets in
America, although I guess they'd be a risk of having minecraft.net seized as
.net's US administered isn't it?

~~~
qznc
So their alternative is to close shop in the US? I like that thought. This
might actually be the best action to improve the US patent system.

~~~
bkyan
Maybe just boycott sales to Eastern Texas where most of these patent lawsuits
get filed ...

------
tinco
I have a question about this. Can you be sued from Texas if you sell your
software in any state _but_ Texas? So if I add a clause to my EULA that the
product can not be bought or used in the state of Texas, would that force
patent trolls to sue in a different state?

edit: This wiki.answers page seems to say that could work
[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_someone_sue_another_person_if_...](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_someone_sue_another_person_if_they_do_not_live_in_the_same_state)

~~~
jahewson
You might also be expected to take some measures to enforce this, such as a
State drop-down box, with an "I agree" EULA/ToS.

~~~
rprasad
You are referring to a "choice of forum" clause (which is distinct from a
"choice of jurisdiction clause").

Choice of forum determines _where_ any disputes are held. Choice of
jurisdiction determines what state's laws apply (if the dispute involves a
matter of state law).

~~~
jahewson
I don't think so, I was suggesting that a company could simply not do business
with anyone in an undesirable location (e.g. Texas), and have that as part of
the EULA, but with some proactive form of enforcement such as a drop-down,
much like those "enter your birthday" age-checks, as passively adding it to
the EULA text might not be good enough.

~~~
rprasad
That doesn't work. Putting it in the EULA is not enough. You would actuallly
have to reject customers with Texas addresses.

~~~
jahewson
Quite possibly, but it gets worse: judging from Natsu's comment about patent
suits being federal, and the trolls being based in Texas, it looks like it's
almost impossible to avoid being sued in Texas, whether or not you do any
business there, as long as you do business somewhere in the US.

~~~
dedward
I'll defer to experts on the patent issue, but in principle, if you are quick
to take measures to avoid doing business with people in states that cause you
trouble as soon as they bring it up, it will very likely give you much better
chances in court, and much more favor with whoever is deciding your fate,
especially if it's international.

~~~
jahewson
Patents are federal law, not state law, which is the basic point here. It
seems very dangerous to think that you can dodge federal law by avoiding doing
business in a specific state, and I should think that the jury would be
instructed as such. An attempt to state-dodge might even be seen as indicative
of an awareness of wrongdoing.

------
fleitz
They were also dumb enough to sue EA, my bet is this goes away pretty quickly
(at least for EA)

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/100637098/Uniloc-et-al-v-
Electroni...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/100637098/Uniloc-et-al-v-Electronic-
Arts)

A cursory reading of the claims explicitly outlined against Mojang makes me
wonder if it's even a valid claim, they seem to be claiming the 'computer
executable code' in claim 107 instead of a 'method'.

It also seems like there would be plenty of prior art to find computer code on
an electronic device to prevent unauthorized access. I think the PDP-10 and
UNIX would suffice such prior art.

~~~
ivanvanderbyl
I was actually quite surprised to read this on HN, I once met Ric Richardson
the founder of Uniloc shortly after he sued Microsoft for infringing a similar
patent, and I usually laugh at anyone trying to enforce software patents but
this time I would take it a lot more seriously.

~~~
simonw
Why would you take it a lot more seriously?

~~~
DanBC
Because the decision has flip-flopped a few times, but at the moment Microsoft
has settled.

([http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/microsoft-
settles-f...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/microsoft-settles-
fight-over-uniloc-anti-piracy-patent-1-.html))

MS has lawyers, and money, and time, and thus for them to lose is concerning.
(Not saying anything about the applicability of this patent to Mojang.)

~~~
ceejayoz
Defending a patent suit costs millions. Settling may simply have been cheaper,
while still giving a big payday to the troll.

~~~
astrodust
$8 a copy of Minecraft sounds like a fair licensing price. How about that?
Okay, thanks!

------
Kiro
Dumb question maybe but how can they sue a Swedish company? As far as I know
there are no such things as software patents in Sweden.

~~~
citricsquid
Probably because Mojang sell their product(s) in the US.

~~~
Kiro
But what happens when they don't have a legal entity in the US? Who will
enforce it?

~~~
DrJokepu
They can stop the distribution in the United Stares. In addition, Swedish
courts would probably honor the decision of the US court.

~~~
gnaritas
Stop distribution? With what, magic? Hasn't everyone learned by now that you
can't stop distribution of digital data?

~~~
primatology
You can never stop the determined. But the courts could certainly pull the app
from the Android store.

~~~
AJ007
Last notch tweeted Xbox sales were over 3 million, at $20 each that's $60m
worth of sales. No idea about Android or iOS.

Restitution could come from revenues of any US product sales or assets, not
just the specific one being contested.

------
sigkill
This article suddenly reminded me of another link that was on front page a few
weeks ago. That one was on how to incorporate a company in another country
without being there. People wanted to incorporate their software startups in
the US due to ease of payment processing and stuff. After seeing these kind of
patent trolls, I wonder if anyone would even think of incorporating the the
US.

If your product is international, and you're incorporated in the US and then a
patent troll fucks you up, you'll have to waste so much _time_ on all the
procedures in addition to the money. And if anything goes wrong, then you'll
have to pay hefty penalties/fines/royalties or close shop.

If your company is incorporated outside the country, granted you might find it
a little hard to get your payment processor set up, but atleast you know that
patent trolls [which, unfortunately seem to primarily originate from the USA]
would be able to only shut down your business in one country. And, as long as
you had a website up, people will find ways to bypass the country restriction.
[Hint - Amazon's free app of the day isn't just being enjoyed by people in the
USA]

~~~
Vivtek
Which is why you would set up a subsidiary LLC in the United States, and
dissolve it if it's sued.

~~~
hmmmmmmmmmm
Would this be a viable way to escape some frivolous patent lawsuit? I've often
wondered about this, and even tried to research it somewhat, but I'm still
unsure about it.

Suppose I have an LLC for my small (one-man) business in the U.S., and then I
get targeted by a patent troll with some ridiculous claims. Can I simply start
up another LLC in another country (one with saner patent laws), transfer my
domains/hosting/whatever else to it, and dissolve the U.S. LLC? It seems too
easy.

~~~
sigkill
Even I would like an expert to answer this. Assuming my domain is a .com
domain, does the USA have jurisdiction over the company even if say, it's
registered in Sweden?

~~~
Vivtek
I'd also like to hear an expert's opinion, but isn't the entire _point_ of a
limited liability company to limit liability?

~~~
jlarocco
I'm not an expert, but that's not quite how LLCs work. LLCs limit the
liability of the owner. Not the LLC.

Lets say I install plumbing in your house and it fails and damages your
property, so you sue my company. If I'm a sole proprietor or a couple of guys
doing business as a partnership then suing the company effectively means suing
me (us) personally. If I lose and owe you $1 million, you can have my plumbing
stuff seized to pay the debt, but if that doesn't cover all of it then I
personally owe you the remainder. You can put a lein on my house and screw up
my credit and put a collection agency after me until I pay off the debt.

On the other hand, if I have an LLC or a corporation, then the liability is
limited to the property of the LLC or corporation. You can have my vans and
warehouse seized, but you can't take my personal property like my house. If
the LLC can't pay the full debt then it can owe you and make payments or
something, but you can't "ruin" the owners.

In this case, simply "dissolving" the LLC wouldn't solve the problem. While it
existed the LLC presumably had property, and that's what they would go after.
If you tried to pull a "The LLC didn't have any property" then they'd probably
toss you to the IRS for running an illegitimate LLC. And when the IRS was done
auditing you, the patent guys would come back and go after you personally.

I'm definitely not a lawyer or any kind of business expert, though. If anybody
knows better I'd also be interested.

~~~
sigkill
I'm not a lawyer, but I've got a LLC equivalent and you're almost spot on.

If I own 25 of a company's shares, and let's say the shares are worth $1000
each then it means they can only claim a maximum of $25000 from me. Which is
actually my investment in the company. So the worst thing they can do is take
over my shares. Along with that, they can hypothecate any and all equipment
that has been purchased in the company's account. So, the company car, company
computer, server space, domain name, tables, chairs, office space etc.

What they cannot do is physically come into my home and forcably take my
wife's jewelry and my personal computer. They cannot take my television or my
car. Because those have been bought on "my" money, i.e. the salary that I'm
claiming from the company.

This is LLC/WLL.

But what I'm interested is a bit different. Say, I run a business called
algorithms.com with my company registered in Sweden. If tomorrow a patent
troll in Texas files a suit against me, it's obvious that the US DOJ cannot
shut down my business. But can they seize the domain name, only simply because
it's a .com instead of a .se or a .whatever else

------
kposehn
What I find so hilarious about this is that they refer to it as "Mindcraft".

~~~
mparlane
Invalid lawsuit? :P

------
foz
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC DATA.

When are governments finally going to do something about the patent system?

~~~
Kerrick
When are people going to start reading more than just patent titles?

This specific system and method involve using a card inserted into a computing
device paired with a server over a network for authentication. It goes deeper
than just the title.

~~~
foz
Yes, read the patent. It covers a lot more than that specific case, which is
why the title is vague and is exactly why governments should step in and stop
this madness.

------
citricsquid
This is confusing. Minecraft on Android doesn't have any Minecraft specific
authentication service, it's tied to your google account just like all other
Android (market) apps.

You can find the app here:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mojang.min...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mojang.minecraftpe&hl=en)

The entire suit is based on something patently (ha ha ha) untrue.

Minecraft on the PC /does/ authenticate with a licensing server, but this suit
specifies mobile.

~~~
wedtm
It's alright, the actual product cited is MINDcraft.

~~~
georgespencer
Mindcraft doesn't exist, so I'm guessing that this is a mistake by the legal
team.

If it were significantly wrong (e.g. "Photoshop" rather than "Minecraft") then
they'd have to file again. In this instance it's similar enough that most
courts will allow it, although it looks bad for the lawyers involved.

------
antihero
Or "Mindcraft" as the legal document describes it.

------
codeka
How is this even possible? Firstly, they've spelled the name of the infringing
product incorrectly. Secondly, it doesn't even do what they're saying it does.

OK, I mean, it's _possible_ , but is anyone taking this seriously? Does this
lawsuit even stand a chance?

~~~
csense
It's probably going to cost a gazillion dollars for Mojang to defend against,
since patent lawyers are expensive.

The troll can probably determine how small Mojang really is and just try to
use legal procedures to make things as expensive as possible. No need to
actually fight for real (as they presumably did against Microsoft.)

This is why we should have a mandatory award of attorney's fees to the winner
in IP cases. It would make lawyers more willing to take Mojang's side on a
contingency basis (they only get paid if Mojang wins).

------
ryanmacg
For further info on the patent in question [http://news.priorsmart.com/uniloc-
v-mojang-ab-l6rh/#pat-6857...](http://news.priorsmart.com/uniloc-v-mojang-
ab-l6rh/#pat-6857067)

~~~
gioele
Link to the patent, no Flash required:
<http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067>

------
teyc
Uniloc is Australian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric_Richardson> and it won
more than $300m from MS.

~~~
simonster
That page says that the $388 million verdict was overturned on appeal, and
that "an undisclosed amount in compensation to Richardson."

------
aeurielesn
As far as I know, Mojang doesn't have a game called "Mindcraft[sic]."

I wonder if this makes the whole plaintiff void?

~~~
sgift
I have no idea of us law but I think they still have a case because they wrote
"the unauthorized use of said application, including, but not limited to,
Mindcraft." and not only "Mindcraft".

------
paraschopra
How do CEOs of patent trolls sleep at night?

~~~
Torn
On fat wads of cash?

~~~
Foy
Or in their coffins?

~~~
RBerenguel
That's for day sleeping, only

------
thenomad
I think the patent trolls might have chosen the wrong target on this one.

You can get away with suing Microsoft without too much PR fallout. No-one is
going to get that upset.

But attacking a much-beloved company with a much-beloved founder with a suit
that could prevent millions of people from playing their favourite game?

I'd expect a certain amount of, shall we say, "third party action". Said
patent troll might want to hire more phone operators. And PR guys.

And security personnel.

~~~
csense
PR only matters to them if their relationship with their customers is
consensual.

This is not the case with a patent troll.

------
atirip
This is hilarious. Mojang is on not subject of US laws, US software patents
can not be enforced either. So Mojng can totally ignore that case.

~~~
rwmj
Dangerous ... A default judgement could prevent them from selling Minecraft in
the US, and could implicate other companies helping them who are based in the
US (ie. Google & Appple because their stores are presumably located there).

~~~
huhtenberg
> _selling Minecraft in the US_

 _This_ I don't understand. Mojang sells Minecraft in Sweden. _You_ come to
_them_ , not the other way around (unless they have a US-based webshop).

A person from the US can fly to Sweden and buy a bottle of Absolute Absinthe
(made-up) and then bring it back to the US. She may not succeed getting it
through the customs, but it will be the US customs who enforce the import
restriction, not the Swedish liquor store. Similarly, Mojang is a liquor
store, Minecraft is a bottle. Why should Mojang be enforcing US e-com
restrictions? This doesn't make any sense.

~~~
ktizo
They are legally obliged to for any sales to the US territories. So if you are
in the US and buy Minecraft, then they are exporting software to the US and
have to comply with relevant law and any trade agreements between Sweden and
the US.

~~~
atirip
First. A company in whatever country is legally obliged only to that country's
law. Export means that company is selling something in his jurisdiction to
somebody who is not. That somebody is importer. Importer has to comply with
the law of the country he/she is importing. One can not expect that exporter
burden is to know all UN members laws.

Second. There cannot be and there is none agreements between Sweden and US
which would prevent swedish companies producing something that infringes US-
only patents. Also any swedish company can produce anything that is banned in
US. I guess absynthe is.

Third. Pay attention to the HTC & Apple cases. Apple is trying to prevent
import of HTC phones. That is the key! Apple can not sue taiwanese company of
US patent infringement, not in US, not in Taiwan. What they can do is complain
to ITC and ban import and that is exactly what they ar doing:
[http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/12/apple-wins-itc-ruling-
of-...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/12/apple-wins-itc-ruling-of-
narrow.html)

~~~
rprasad
First, A country is legally obliged to follow the laws of _all countries in
which they do business_. For legal purposes, "doing business" means actual
physical operations in a country or knowingly and deliberately selling _into_
a country. This is basic international law.

Second. That is not how import/export law works. I do not have time to explain
how it applies, so Google it.

Third. Your second statement is correct.

Fourth. Your third statement is not correct. Apple can sue HTC in the U.S. b/c
HTC does business in the U.S. Apple chose to pursue this case in the ITC b/c
it is asignificantly faster way to achieve its business goals (namely,
interfering with a competitor's sales of a product). Patent litigation through
the court system is a very slow, years-long process, and could take long
enough that Apple would be on the down-cycle again.

------
jebblue
How can a European company sue a European company in ... Texas? If I were the
judge I'd kick it out of court on shear lunacy.

~~~
swdunlop
That's why they are filing in east Texas, it's a jurisdiction that is friendly
to patent trolls. Lunacy is the business model.

------
niels_olson
> Uniloc

aka "one line of code"?

I have a hypothesis that at least some of the patent trolls are actually a
non-violent protest against the way patent law is implemented. They're
forcing, demanding, the legal system catch up.

------
kstrauser
I propose a fun and existing amendment to intellectual property cases: if the
plaintiff loses, the defendant gets to shoot the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's
CEO) and the losing legal team. Not at a distant time and place, mind you, but
right there on the spot. "We the jury find the defendant not liable _blam_
_blam_."

I think that should reduce the number of patent lawsuits to approximately the
number appropriate for an educated and free society. If you really, _really_
feel that you've been wronged, go for it! But don't waste the court's or
society's time, resources, and goodwill on horrid antisocial crud like this.

~~~
jmduke
The fuck?

Replace 'intellectual property' with 'whistleblower' and you've suddenly
illustrated exactly the terrible climate that scares a lot of people away from
doing the right thing.

The problem isn't overzealousness. Hell, overzealousness should be commended.
The problem is a system which drains time and resources regardless and
outcome, and a general ignorance due to the complexity of technology & prior
art.

~~~
kstrauser
We _want_ overzealous IP litigation? To the contrary: yes, that is exactly the
problem.

~~~
jmduke
Overzealous litigation is preferable to underzealous litigation _with_ the
assumption that litigation always favors justice and truth.

Obviously, that latter is not true, and that's the issue here.

------
DanBC
Notch should mobilise some of those millions of players.

(<http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml>)

------
n9com
haha love the typo "mindcraft" rather than "minecraft" (pg3, section 12).

------
heeton
I love how the Plaintiff has called the game 'Mindcraft'!

------
janmonschke
How did the patent troll know about the unreleased and unannounced Minecraft 2
aka Mindcraft??

