"... The general background, necessary reading for basically all of us: ..."
I've been following the Uniloc case for more than 3 years now. [0] This case has a long history. It has it's roots in Ric Richardson being ripped off by Microsoft from '97 onwards. Ric sued Microsoft in 2003 but he'd demoed the software in question to MS in 1993. [1]
Uniloc was once a startup.
"Ric and I were at a music expo one day and we
had our own software that we had the rights to
publish in Australia and we were wondering how
to get this piece of music software into, straight
to people’s hands, because we couldn’t afford a
stand at this thing. We were a very small company
working out of Ric’s lounge room basically.
At the time, software piracy was a major problem. We
had to come up with some way to allow people to copy
software from person to person - but still end up
getting paid for it." [2]
That's how it started: An idea, little money, some hacking. While patenting software technology might not be mine or others taste, it allowed a small company in the tech-backwaters to profit & survive to build new things. That is what the tech business in the US is all
about.
1. Software patents might have helped Ric Richardson's startup survive and grow, but who's to say they haven't cost other developers the chance to survive? Look at what he's doing to other companies now.
2. Is it fair that Richardson's firm should have a monopoly on license checking for 20 years? Just think about that - we're talking about the rights to the broad, basic idea of a license-checking mechanism being allocated to a single person for 20 whole years. What good is it to society to allow what amounts to a highly profitable IP land-grab?
3. Should the patent have been approved in the first place, when what seems to be prior art existed in the '80s? (Based on the X-Plane dev's research.) A bankrupt patent is not a very good argument for Richardson's case.
4. Tightening the standards for issuing patents could conceivably allow developers to launch products and try implementing new features without a particular fear of stepping on patent landmines. That will be good for proliferation and innovation.
5. Patenting and licensing a technology is not the only valid business model in tech. I don't think it's "what the tech business in the US is all about". It's not the only, or best, way.
Uniloc’s story mirrors an American theme seen over and
over during the last few decades: a company that is
discovering, growing and innovating technology that is
changing the way people live.
I've been following the Uniloc case for more than 3 years now. [0] This case has a long history. It has it's roots in Ric Richardson being ripped off by Microsoft from '97 onwards. Ric sued Microsoft in 2003 but he'd demoed the software in question to MS in 1993. [1]
Uniloc was once a startup.
That's how it started: An idea, little money, some hacking. While patenting software technology might not be mine or others taste, it allowed a small company in the tech-backwaters to profit & survive to build new things. That is what the tech business in the US is all about.[0] http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Ric+Richard...
[1] http://www.theage.com.au/technology/biz-tech/aussie-inventor...
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2007/s2666148.htm