

Aussie inventor's $445m Microsoft windfall wiped out - bootload
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/biz-tech/aussie-inventors-445m-microsoft-windfall-wiped-out-20090930-gc77.html

======
tumult
_"It was never about the money. It was about the ethics of it ... winning a
court case is not winning the lottery."_

Haha, bullshit. Nice to a see judge make a reasoned decision.

This site The Age is also absurdly biased in favor of this patent troll. They
even play up a "small guy taking on big bad business" angle. What a
journalistic joke.

~~~
mahmud
Publishing is not immune to parochialism. Everyone is a hero in their hometown
paper.

------
callmeed
This appears to be the patent:

<http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5490216.html>

From the abstract, you'd think this guy could sue every software company that
uses a license key or registration number.

------
antipaganda
The patent would certainly be considered obvious nowadays, but that's not the
point. The guy did show his work to Microsoft, they said "Nice idea, yoink".
He did indeed have a patent on the idea. He won an appeal based on the fact
that the judge did not listen to a jury's opinion on the case. So they got a
jury, and the jury voted in favour of Richardson.

And the judge again ignores the jury. What the hell, man?

~~~
varjag
> The guy did show his work to Microsoft, they said "Nice idea, yoink".

That's his version of the story.

~~~
cubicle67
Well, that was pretty common form for MS during the 90's. There's dozens of
companies who's work MS stole blatantly, often under the pretence of 'That's a
great tech you've got. let's work together on it'

~~~
varjag
So far it sounds more as if someone came to you with "newly-discovered"
bubblesort algorithm, you said "uh nice" and proceeded using quciksort, then
got sued.

------
shalmanese
alternate title: patent troll fails at attempted extortion

~~~
bootload
_"... patent troll fails at attempted extortion ..."_

when you mention _patent troll_ I think Nathan Myhrvold
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold>) not Ric Richardson. Ric
actually builds stuff and to characterise him as an extortionist is opinion
only.

 _"... To me, the money is important only in so far as it allows me to further
my ideas. ..."_ ([http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-
in...](http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-in-a-van-
outsmarted-
microsoft/2009/04/19/1240079538770.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1))

To me a patent troll is someone who buys patents then threatens the alleged
infringer with profit in mind. That describes Nathan Myhrvold
([http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-...](http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-
Ventures-Patent-Protection-Racket?from=rss)) and Intellectual Ventures.
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures>) The fact that Nathan is
a former Microsoft CTO also hints at the culture of Microsoft.

Where does that leave Uniloc? Just how do companies who create strategic
technology with an entrepreneurial eye approach potential buyers without being
ripped off? Microsoft has prior form ripping off competitors
(<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22microsoft+ripped+off++*%22>) and Uniloc
another victim. Ric Richardson has form for building stuff. Lets see who
continues to be the troll?

~~~
tumult
No, sorry. His patent is ridiculous. It's trolling – cast a wide net and set
the cruise control. Sue and hope you get lucky. You might make a buck off the
broken system! Blatant example of why software patents should be abolished in
general.

~~~
ErrantX
can you explain what happened to me: the only story I read is that he showed
MS his patented tech in 1993 and they turned it down and re-implemented it
themselves.

Im guessing that is in no way the full unbiased story from what your saying;
got any good links?

~~~
tumult
He had a patent granted in 1996 that covers: product activation, shareware,
and machine ID locking. There's not really much else to say, it's idiotic. The
Age has no idea of how much damage this would have done to an already battered
set of affairs, had the ruling been let to stand. It's shameful they're
propping this moron up onto a pedestal.

~~~
ErrantX
Cool thanks.

I totally agree with you. Though I wonder if there is the argument that he is
using this patent right... if he _did_ show his specific work to Microsoft and
they subsequently implemented it themselves would you not agree he was ripped
off by them?

Now, if he had this patent and was suing any old company left right and centre
I would join you in calling him a moron (he could well take that approach in
the future - then he would be a moron). Right now I am seeing a tiny sliver of
validity in his claim (if what appears to have happened is true).

I'd argue in this case the patent is doing what it is supposed too (though the
outcome didn't go quite right).

~~~
tumult
It doesn't matter who he targets with it, it's completely wrong. It sets the
wrong precedent in every way. Why should it be "ok" for him to target
Microsoft with it, but not some smaller developer?

There's no validity to his claim, this "news report" is totally biased. He
patented stuff that had been going on since the 80s and then immediately
turned to sue the biggest company he could find, hoping to win a payout. The
jury sided with the "little guy" and the judge threw out the verdict based on
their bias. (I think that's what happened, anyway.) I'm assuming he can
appeal, but I hope it he doesn't fare any better this time.

~~~
ErrantX
Im confused; dont you think he has a right to feel cross Microsoft screwed him
(if that is what happened)?

The rest of what your saying is irrelevant (I agree: patents used in a broad
way are evil) because it appears he has a specific complaint against a
specific company :) not a general attempt to enforce his/a patent?

I get the impression you haven't read the background? It does appear MS might
well have done an injustice by him in '93. If that is what he is trying to
right; then I guess I support him. If he is, as you suggesting, just trying to
sue his patent all over the place (which I see no evidence for yet) then I am
with you totally.

I worry that the patent trolling leaves cases like this, where there seems the
makings of a reasonable complaint, out high and dry :(

------
andy008
I believe Uniloc’s so-called invention is nothing more than a rehash of much
older ideas and technologies that already existed.

Firstly, the whole try before you buy idea was popularised by Bob Wallace in
1983 with the release of his shareware software PC-Write, a word processor
that you could trial for free and register if you liked it. (see
[http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v2/2_4_html/...](http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v2/2_4_html/2_4_08_Waddell.html)).

This concept was adopted by hundreds of software authors in the 80’s, and
quickly evolved to include time limits and activation keys long before Uniloc.
Users enjoyed the ability to try a fully functional product before purchase.
However, even Wallace acknowledged he got the term shareware, which embodies
the whole try before you buy idea, from a computer column that appeared in
Infoworld magazine in the 70’s.

Secondly, software protection schemes that relied on hardware to generate
security keys were common-place in the mid 80’s. Australian software company
Pittwater Distributors developed an application called Cashbook in the early
80’s which used a plug-in hardware dongle (a small hardware key) in order to
secure the application. Other companies such as Alpha-Micro and Sun-
MicroSystems used serial numbers stored in the physical hardware of the
computer.

I personally worked on a software encryption and protection systems in 1984
for game publisher Electronic Arts which relied on keys derived from the
physical software media (a tape or disk). This approach was extremely common-
place at the time.

In short, software trial mechanisms and protection systems were obvious,
common-place technologies and marketing models long before Uniloc.

I agree with the judge.

------
codexon
[http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180587.asp?from...](http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180587.asp?from=blog_last3)

> The technology in question included the use of a software activation key to
> keep users from installing licensed software on more than one computer.

I have no love for stupidly obvious patents, but what the judge did seems like
an abuse of power.

------
lionhearted
I was going to weigh in, but a number of comments already spelled it out.

> Richardson's patent, one of many under his name, relates to work he did in
> the early 1990s and covers a software registrations system that allows
> software makers to create try-before-you-buy versions of their work.

There's a lot of asinine software patents - like Apple has patented the
specific touch screen motions used on the iPhone. They're pretty intuitive
motions - there's only so many ways to move your fingers on a screen that make
sense. Patents were made to protect inventors and stimulate innovation -
patents on obvious evolutions in technology do the opposite.

~~~
nedwin
Blackboard is one of the worst offenders.

edit: correct link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_Inc>.

~~~
nopassrecover
They're gradually losing their patents. With any hope universities may have
decent software one day.

------
fungi
The "little aussie battla" (he aint little) nationalism is embarrassing,
doubly so coming from ppl wouldn't even know what a software patent is... or
how stupid they are... or that we are stuck fuskin things in exchange for
selling wheat under the USA-AussieLand free (preferential) trade agreement...
blood boils

