Uniloc owns patents for nasty software DRM

 

They only sue other companies that also use nasty DRM

 

If X-Plane on Android refrained from using nasty DRM then they wouldn't have a problem ...

 

Cut the greedy DRM BS and we will all be better off

 

Then companies like Uniloc will simply ... disappear

As long as there are illegal download sites, there will always be DRM.

It has nothing to do with developers being greedy. It has everything to do with developers protecting their work.

Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin:

 

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and pirated software."

Lawsuit trolls wonder what games they play :ph34r:

As long as there are illegal download sites, there will always be DRM.

It has nothing to do with developers being greedy. It has everything to do with developers protecting their work.

 

I'll never cease to be amazed by the people who feel they are entitled to the fruits of another's labor for nothing, going so far as to label the laborer as greedy for giving their labor monetary value.

Uniloc owns patents for nasty software DRM

 

They only sue other companies that also use nasty DRM

 

If X-Plane on Android refrained from using nasty DRM then they wouldn't have a problem ...

 

Cut the greedy DRM BS and we will all be better off

 

Then companies like Uniloc will simply ... disappear

 

So you're insinuating protecting one's work is "greedy"? And that's your first post?!

 

Anyway, Uniloc does have a pretty nasty reputation.

I'll never cease to be amazed by the people who feel they are entitled to the fruits of another's labor for nothing, going so far as to label the laborer as greedy for giving their labor monetary value.

 

I've lost count how many times I have had people tell me that as long as I have DRM, they will never purchase anything I make.

I still fail to see what is so horrible about it.

I've lost count how many times I have had people tell me that as long as I have DRM, they will never purchase anything I make.

I still fail to see what is so horrible about it.

 

To me it all depends how its implemented. In general I dislike DRM that requires me to have the disc with me to play, especially if I already had to input a valid CD key, I dislike DRM's that limit me on how many times I am allowed to install a product on the same computer after re-installs (So like if I reinstall something 3 times I can't do it anymore) and I dislike always on DRM that has to call back home constantly or whenever I start up a game.

 

That being said most FS DRM I have experienced is not like any of that. Flight1 even lets you request a refund within 30 days, most just ask you to activate it only once or use a CD key method. Those are all ok in my eyes as once its installed I can play anywhere or offline. Or something like Steam I do not mind at all and purchase most of my games there. But something like what Ubisoft was doing I don't support. I don't want to feel like I am renting a game for a brief time in history. Some games I play ever after almost 20 years since they came out, and I think it would be a shame for that to be lost because we are now in the internet era (its also why I like supporting GOG.com)

 

DRM to me seems to depend on what flavor it comes in.

As long as there are illegal download sites, there will always be DRM.

It has nothing to do with developers being greedy. It has everything to do with developers protecting their work.

 

Then it begs the question, if UNILOC does in fact hold a valid legal patent on the DRM technology LR used with XP and if LR in fact used it without permission or compensation as alleged, then what makes them any better then the Pirates? What's good for the goose is good for the gander!!

Then it begs the question, if UNILOC does in fact hold a valid legal patent on the DRM technology LR used with XP and if LR in fact used it without permission or compensation as alleged, then what makes them any better then the Pirates? What's good for the goose is good for the gander!!

 

It goes a lot deeper than that, Tom.

First of all, LR are being sued for using DRM, allegedly patented by Uniloc, on Android devices only.

2nd, LR are using something that is freely available for use by many other companies. Electronic Arts is one of the companies being sued for the very same thing in the very same lawsuit.

To call LR "pirates", without knowing all the facts, is bordering on libel.

Then it begs the question, if UNILOC does in fact hold a valid legal patent on the DRM technology LR used with XP and if LR in fact used it without permission or compensation as alleged, then what makes them any better then the Pirates?

 

Is this a joke or are you really asking this question ? You're talking about completely different things here: software patents and copyright.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

 

Now, let's have a look at what the "pirates" did: nothing. They're only using a copy command, but they don't create something. What has been done by Uniloc ? Nothing. Where's Uniloc's product ? The only product they made or bought, is a stupid piece of paper called "software patent" with a very poor description of a process, and they sent this to an even more stupid patent office. Wow !

 

And now Laminar Research: they've worked hard with their user base and now also with the OpenStreetMap contributors to create the best flight simulator you can get for your desktop computer. Their innovative product is the result of many years of coding, 3D modeling and texturing. So what are you trying to say with your question ?

It goes a lot deeper than that, Tom.

First of all, LR are being sued for using DRM, allegedly patented by Uniloc, on Android devices only.

2nd, LR are using something that is freely available for use by many other companies. Electronic Arts is one of the companies being sued for the very same thing in the very same lawsuit.

To call LR "pirates", without knowing all the facts, is bordering on libel.

 

One I never said LR was pirates, I left it as a question If UNILOC patent is legal, and LR is found to have violated it, what then? Isn't the effect the same as someone who didn't pay for software? I fully know the issue about Software Patents, and I don't think they should be allowed either, Copyright law should be sufficient, as software is abstract not a physical medium. What you or I believe though doesn't matter, if the law recognizes it as valid.

One I never said LR was pirates, I left it as a question If UNILOC patent is legal, and LR is found to have violated it, what then? Isn't the effect the same as someone who didn't pay for software? I fully know the issue about Software Patents, and I don't think they should be allowed either, Copyright law should be sufficient, as software is abstract not a physical medium. What you or I believe though doesn't matter, if the law recognizes it as valid.

 

I understand what you are saying, but even hinting at LR being possible "pirates" or, more specifically, " if LR in fact used it without permission or compensation as alleged, then what makes them any better then the Pirates?" can be easily misconstrued as libel. I'm no lawyer, and don't want to even pretend to be one, but I think it would be much better if this was left to the courts without making any assumptions that could prove damaging. There is a lot of money and a companies reputation at stake.

but I think it would be much better if this was left to the courts without making any assumptions that could prove damaging. There is a lot of money and a companies reputation at stake

 

On this point I agree, and reading back my post even though I meant it as a hypothetical question, I could see how it could be misconstrued. As such and since this is an active case, I think AVSIM should ban discussion on this subject, similar to what they did with P3D Eulas!

I've lost count how many times I have had people tell me that as long as I have DRM, they will never purchase anything I make.

I still fail to see what is so horrible about it.

 

I'll be honest-- wonky DRM systems don't win many points with me, but it's the complete other side of the argument that espouses a collectivist belief that intellectual property is somehow the property of the public domain that really gets in my craw.