Skip to main content

Sydney Morning Herald Article Today


After speaking to Asher Moses from the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, he reported on the new Uniloc suits on the SMH.COM.AU website today.

It's amazing that everyone is so supportive of what Uniloc (and I...) are trying to do. Even though there are a handful of ridiculous murmurs calling Uniloc a patent troll in the US, everyone seems to understand that you can't lay claim to a patent and then walk away from it as soon as things get a bit hard.

Here are some of the quotes I gave to Asher:

“What many people don’t realize is that the validity of the Uniloc patent was not being questioned by the court. In fact it’s validity was maintained  even under the test of all of Microsoft’s legal resources. The judges decision simply showed that he agreed with Microsoft that the method used by them for Activation is different to the method described in the 216 patent. It’s there in the decision for all to see.”

“The fact is that the patent withstood a firestorm of scrutiny has given me the confidence to support Uniloc as it goes about protecting its patent rights that I assigned to the company shortly after it was invented.”

“Even though the list of new companies being sued have been carefully researched and evaluated over the years, I am sure Uniloc is using the same approach we used in evaluating Microsoft’s Activation system while I was day-to-day at the company.”

“I am the inventor of the 216 patent, but Uniloc Singapore (a wholly owned subsidiary of Uniloc Corporation here in Australia is the assignee of the US patent. The Australian and New Zealand patents for the same invention are owned directly by the Australian parent company.”

“As I said on ABC’s Australian Story, you can’t decide to patent your invention and then let it flap in the wind. You have to stand by your decision.”

“When you invent something it’s really hard to believe that no one else in the world has thought of your idea. You spend a year then two, then five waiting for someone to pop up who was doing it better before you, but that never happened.”

“Uniloc is a serious company with lots of employees, lots of talent and only a fraction are working on the patent protection side. It’s not a focus in terms of manpower but it is something we have to do.”

Re the Microsoft case:

“My personal opinion is that Microsoft is a big company and their fighting Uniloc every step of the way from initial suit even to the Supreme Court makes sense for them financially if it can lessen the likelihood of paying out the large sums being contested. What is ten or fifteen million dollars in legal fees when hundreds of millions are at stake?”

“I haven’t researched how many times Microsoft has said “oops sorry we infringed your patent… here is the royalty you asked for” but I doubt it has happened to many times.”

Not to be picky but there are a few things in the article needing clarification:
  • It was reported that I list 140 inventions on my site.... actually its projects and inventions.Some of these were not what I would consider an invention including the Shadesavers I worked on with my brother... it was a novel idea but I don't think qualified as an invention.
  • Also the Collaboration for eBay is quoted as having applications in the Lottery and gambling space. For the record I personally do not agree with or want to support gambling in any way. However, the article quite rightly reports that the invention could be used for that purpose though if I was implementing it would never use it that way.
Nuff said.
Real Time Web Analytics