91–100 of 200 posts
How is the price settled upon? I mean, why ask $35k specifically? Why not 3.5k or 350k?
That's about what it costs to draft and file a 12(b)(6) motion to kill the patent at the start of a case for lack of subject matter eligibility under Alice v. CLS Bank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moving to Estonia just to avoid software patent trolls is an extreme case of letting the tail wag the dog.
50% of the companies in the US incorporate in Delaware. Is that also tail wagging the dog? https://www.delawareinc.com/corporation/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're still selling to the US, I don't think this would protect you. Your product can be banned anyway.
Your product could be banned, but the sue-er would never collect any money. So, if the sue-er is a patent troll, why would they bother? They don't care about banning competition. They'd burn a lot of money on lawyers for zero income. That's not a fight that they want to pick.
Hard to decide how I feel here. I hate software patents and patent trolls, but I also hate what f2p and premium currencies have done to gaming. Which is the lesser of these evils?
This company actually left the F2P model for the second version: http://www.clickerheroes2.com/paytowin.php
That's an amazing "satisfaction guarantee", if you trust them to honor refunds.
"By pre-ordering, you're putting your trust in us to develop a good game without being completely sure about what you'll get. We feel the only way to return the favor is to put our trust in you."
I have no interest in their game, but I want to buy it anyway.
In the PDF documents that Playsaurus has put online, the accuser's lawyers have redacted one line, and that's in the "The lawsuit they will file if we don't pay" document at the bottom, where it says: THE deBRUIN FIRM, LLC [Redacted] David W. deBruin (#4846) 1201 N. Orange Street, Suite 500 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 660-2744 Facsimile: (302) 650-1574 ddebruin@thedebruinfirm.com Of Counsel: RUBIN AND…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moving to Estonia just to avoid software patent trolls is an extreme case of letting the tail wag the dog.
50% of the companies in the US incorporate in Delaware. Is that also tail wagging the dog? https://www.delawareinc.com/corporation/
has someone tried patenting making money buy being a patent troll? that of course would make one mega patent troll to deal with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The morality of both of them is subjective.
Would be more useful if you can comment on how/when patent trolling would be ethical
Edited: Well for once, they are not enticing little kids, to steal mom or dads credit card for virtual currencys- and target as a particular group the social outcasts and looners.
God it sounds even more despicable if you precise it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is ridiculously disheartening that this sort of thing even has to exist. It's just taking the money you'd be forced to pay some exploitative patent troll, and giving it (well, probably/hopefully less of it, but still) to an exploitative insurance firm instead.
The insurance firm isn't exploitative. The patent troll is actively harmfully attacking people. The insurance firm (assuming they aren't secretly creating demand for their product) is mitigating the damage. Locksmiths and firefighters aren't exploitative.
This is why people in high risk categories pay more for insurance (eg young people and people with high performance cars have higher car insurance premiums because statistically they crash more often and/or have higher rates of total loss)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why this is even a question. The morality of the latter is subjective while the former is not. Have you seen the patent picture? They literally have a cell phone, connected to a cloud, and other computers. How the fuck is this approved by the patent office? That is literally how every transaction via cell phones occur.
That they have such a weak patent is a problem with the system that permits it. Copyright should be enough for software. The morality doesn't seem that disparate either - they are both exploitative. I do stand corrected on this company after being linked to their post on reversing their model.
Agreed
> The morality doesn't seem that disparate either - they are both exploitative. > I do stand corrected on this company after being linked to their post on reversing their model.
Noted.
To clarify, I do not disagree that F2P can be exploitative. It certainly can be. There are cases when kids are playing games and end up spending thousands of dollars.
F2P can however, be done right. I've been playing Dota 2 since the beta which is F2P and only provides cosmetics; believe same is true for League of Legends. Hence, I was saying that one is pure evil and the other is lesser (and in some cases not evil at all)