Patent Troll Sues X-Plane 214
symbolset writes "X-plane is a cross-platform flight simulator app, notably the only serious one that supports Mac OSX and Linux. It was the first to include NASA data in their terrain modelling. It's now under threat by an NPE (Non-Practicing Entity) called Uniloc. Uniloc is suing for things X-Plane has done for decades. X-plane cannot afford to defend this suit, so if somebody doesn't step up and defend them then we lose X-plane forever. Quoting: 'I have spoken to a lawyer about this, and I am told that it will cost me about $1,500,000 (one and a half million dollars) to defend this suit. He also told me that it should take about two to three years to defend. This is more money than I have made selling Android Apps in the first place.'"
Not to discourage people from contributing... (Score:5, Informative)
...but (FTFA)
Flightgear (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sure the developers of Flightgear would be pleased to hear their efforts aren't serious.
Re:Errrm what? (Score:5, Informative)
Where did "selling Android Apps" enter the picture? Turns out the patent has nothing to do with "things X-Plane has done for decades". Couldn't the editors have checked that?
It enters into the picture because x-Plain is using a standard Android API developed by Google and shipped with Android to check if the user bought the package before allowing it to be used.
This pretty much means Google is going to go after the Troll since the patents cited have plenty of prior art that the patent office overlooked.
The editors could have checked for this, but quite frankly you could have clicked a link an RTFA.
I RTFA and see the following (Score:5, Informative)
* Laminar Research is being sued specifically for the Android version
* Uniloc is suing Laminar Research because X-Plane phones home to validate it's license
* X-Plane is using a system for license validation provided by Google. Nearly everyone else in the Android market is using this same code, so Uniloc is not going to stop here.
I would say Laminar Research needs to get EFF on the phone but I don't know if they would help defend a commercial product.
Re:Errrm what? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually he says he does have that kind of money:
And it sounds like not only does have have that kind of money, but he has lots more too.
Re:Errrm what? (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is, as usually, fairly terribad.
The patent (filed 2001, granted 2005) is for remote license checking. This, you may surmise, is ancient technology. It's ubiquitous technology. It's an egregiously bad candidate for a patent (in my non-lawyer opinion). But, there it is.
The "decades" part has nothing explicit to do with X-Plane, or with the Android license checking API. It has entirely to do with the fact that remote license checking has been done for decades, not that X-Plane has been doing it for decades.
Way to misinterpret TFA when constructing the summary, Original Submitter. (Assuming Editor didn't botch the summary and make it look like they're quoting the Submitter's pristine words.)
I love this place. It makes "finding the real story" into a bizarre and almost-entertaining "Where's Waldo" game.
Re:EFF's policies (Score:5, Informative)
"...without the user's permission"
You click an "Accept & Download" button when installing anything from the Play Store. listed under that button is the permissions the app requires.
Re:FlightGear (Score:4, Informative)
X-Plane does aerodynamic simulations on that no other civilian solution can touch.
Re:Errrm what? (Score:3, Informative)
It would be nice if Google actually went after this troll; however, this troll obviously knows they're probability of surviving against Google is 0 so they went after these 8 developers. Heck, even Oracle didn't survive against Google.
The trick shot there is these 8 developers convincing a judge that the patent is invalid because of "prior art" if you will (see this link [x-plane.com] from Laminar Research); or if it's considered valid that the plaintiff should go after Google instead. If the judge agrees the case is over for the plaintiff.
Re:Stop living in the US (Score:3, Informative)
True, the patent system for software is completely hosed up. But to say, "Innovation is dead in this country," is just you talking out of your ass.
There are plenty of companies in many other facets of science and engineering that are doing just fine by staying in the states (not to mention having some of the best schools in the world plus lots of very good ones). As an example, why do international companies in the petroleum industry routinely do business in the states? Oh wait, is it because innovation is dead? No, it's because we have some of the very best technology and great minds to advise companies all over the world.
Re:FlightGear (Score:5, Informative)
FAA certification? [x-plane.com]
Re:Errrm what? (Score:5, Informative)
The patent (filed 2001, granted 2005) is for remote license checking.
You mean like this patent [uspto.gov], which they failed to list as prior art?