Uniloc

The Uniloc technology is based on a patent granted to the inventor Ric Richardson who was also the founder of the Uniloc Company. The original patent application was dated late 1992 in Australia and granted in the US in 1996 and covers a technology popularly known as product activation, try and buy software and machine locking.

In 1993 Uniloc distributed "Try and Buy" versions of software for multiple publishers via a marketing agreement with IBM. An initial success was the sale of thousands of copies of a software package (First Aid, developed by Cybermedia) distributed on the front cover of Windows Sources magazine in 1994.

In 1997 a US subsidiary was set up called Uniloc PC Preload to produce preloaded unlockable editions of popular software products on new PCs. Distribution agreements were executed with eMachines{{cite news| url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_Nov_10/ai_66803777 | work=Business Wire | title=Uniloc's Try-Before-You-Buy Software to be Included With Emachines PCs in 2001; Consumers Can Try Top-Selling Games, Utilities Free for Up to 7 Days Before Deciding to Buy | year=2000 | access-date=2012-07-25}} and Toshiba. Family PC magazine also produced two months of magazines featuring unlockable software from Uniloc PC Preload on the cover in 2000.[http://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/publishing-electronic-publishing/6472468-1.html] Uniloc.com Debuts Try-Before-You-Buy Software With Family PC Magazine;`'Star Wars Rogue]{{dead link|date=July 2012}}

In 2003, Uniloc Corporation set up a US subsidiary called Uniloc USA, which operates out of Rhode Island and Southern California. The company is currently licensing its patented technology to software publishers and entertainment companies including Sega.{{cite web|url=http://www.uniloc.com/customers/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090512212830/http://www.uniloc.com/customers/ |archive-date=2009-05-12 |title=SoftAnchor Customers |publisher=Uniloc.com |date=2009-05-12 |access-date=2012-07-25}}

{{As of|2010}}, Uniloc had sued 73 companies that it alleges have violated one of its copy-protection patents.{{cite web |url=http://www.uniloc.com/index.php/news-stories/corporate-counsel-patent-litigation-weekly-uniloc-keeps-filing-software-suits-2/ |title=Corporate Counsel: Patent Litigation Weekly: Uniloc Keeps Filing Software Suits « Uniloc |access-date=2013-04-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313083127/http://www.uniloc.com/index.php/news-stories/corporate-counsel-patent-litigation-weekly-uniloc-keeps-filing-software-suits-2/ |archive-date=2012-03-13 }} According to Uniloc, 25 of those companies settled with it out of court. Due to the abstract nature of its patents, and its litigious activities, Uniloc has been deemed a "patent troll" by critics.{{cite web|url = http://boingboing.net/2012/07/21/patent-troll-targets-minecraft.html|title = Patent troll targets Minecraft|author = Rob Beschizza|work = Boing Boing|date = 2012-07-21|access-date = 2013-03-29}}{{cite news|url = https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/minecraft-developer-sued-by-aggressive-litigator-over-drm-patent/|title = Minecraft developer sued by aggressive litigator over DRM patent|author = Ryan Paul|work = Ars Technica|publisher = Condé Nast Publications|date = 2012-07-21|access-date = 2013-03-29}}{{cite news|url = http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/02/20/too-many-patents-how-patent-trolls-kill|title = How Patent Trolls Kill Innovation|author = Zach Weissmueller|work = Reason.com|date = 2013-02-20|access-date = 2013-03-29}}{{cite news|url = https://lwn.net/Articles/544898/|title = Red Hat and Rackspace face down a patent troll|author = corbet|work = LWN.net|date = 2013-03-28|access-date = 2013-03-29}}{{cite news|url = https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/you-cant-patent-simple-math-judge-tells-patent-troll-uniloc/|title = You can't patent simple math, judge tells patent troll Uniloc|author = Jon Brodkin|date = 2013-03-28|work = Ars Technica|publisher = Condé Nast Publications|access-date = 2013-03-29}}

{{main|Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.}}

Uniloc sued Microsoft in 2003 for violating its patent relating to technology designed to deter software piracy. In 2006, US District Judge William Smith ruled in favour of Microsoft, but an appeals court overturned his decision, saying there was a "genuine issue of material fact" and that he should not have ruled on the case without hearing from a jury.{{cite news| url=http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/aussie-inventors-445m-microsoft-windfall-wiped-out-20090930-gc77.html | work=The Sydney Morning Herald | first=Asher | last=Moses | title=Aussie inventor's $445m Microsoft windfall wiped out | date=September 30, 2009}}

On April 8, 2009 a Rhode Island jury found Microsoft had violated the patent and told Microsoft to pay Uniloc $388 million in damages.{{cite web|url=http://www.uniloc.com/uniloc-v-microsoft-patent-infringement-case/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090420055028/http://www.uniloc.com/uniloc-v-microsoft-patent-infringement-case/ |archive-date=2009-04-20 |title=Uniloc Awarded $388 Million in Damages in Major Patent Infringement Case Against Microsoft |date=2009-04-20 |access-date=2012-07-25}} After this success, Uniloc filed new patent infringement suits against Sony America, McAfee, Activision, Quark, Borland Software and Aspyr Media.{{cite news|work=Sydney Morning Herald|title=Van man 1, Microsoft 0: now Aussie Ric's gunning for more tech giants|author= Asher Moses|date=2010-08-05|url=http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/van-man-1-microsoft-0-now-aussie-rics-gunning-for-more-tech-giants-20100805-11ihy.html}}

The decision against Microsoft was subsequently overturned on September 29, 2009, when Judge Smith vacated the jury's verdict and ruled in favour of Microsoft again, saying the jury "lacked a grasp of the issues before it and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis".{{cite news| url=http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180587.asp?from=blog_last3 | work=Seattle Post-Intelligencer | first=Nick | last=Eaton | title=Judge overturns Uniloc's record $388M victory over Microsoft | date=September 29, 2009}} Uniloc appealed the judge's decision, alleging bias and in 2011 the jury verdict was reinstated against Microsoft. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that instead of using the usual "25 percent rule", the damage awards for infringement would need to be recalculated.{{cite news|work=Sydney Morning Herald|title=One man v Microsoft: a day in the Dickmobile, another day in court for Aussie inventor|author= Ben Grubb and Asher Moses|date=2011-01-07|url=http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/one-man-v-microsoft-a-day-in-the-dickmobile-another-day-in-court-for-aussie-inventor-20110106-19h25.html}}

In March 2012, Uniloc and Microsoft reached a "final and mutually agreeable resolution", the terms of which were not disclosed.{{cite web|last=Decker|first=Susan|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/microsoft-settles-fight-over-uniloc-anti-piracy-patent-1-.html|title=Microsoft Settles Fight Over Uniloc Anti-Piracty Patent|publisher=Bloomberg|date=2012-03-05|access-date=2012-10-23}}

On July 20, 2012, Uniloc filed a lawsuit against Mojang, citing the Minecraft Pocket Edition, as an infringement upon patents claiming exclusive rights to a method of software license checking.{{cite web | url = http://notch.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mojang.pdf | last = Bumgardner | first = Barry | title = Mojang v Uniloc patent dispute | publisher = United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas – Tyler Division | date = 2012-07-20 | access-date = 2012-07-21 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120721135821/http://notch.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mojang.pdf | archive-date = 2012-07-21 }} Markus Persson of Mojang has stated he does not believe Minecraft infringes the Uniloc US patent no. 6,857,067 and that Mojang AB will defend the lawsuit.{{cite web | url = https://twitter.com/notch/status/226604081932812288 | last = Persson | first = Markus | title = Twitter / notch: Unfortunately for them, th ... | date = 2012-07-22 | access-date = 2012-07-22 }} The same lawsuit was also filed against other Android game developers including Electronic Arts (maker of Bejeweled 2),{{cite web| url = http://news.priorsmart.com/uniloc-v-electronic-arts-l6r9/| title = Uniloc USA, Inc. et. al. v. Electronic Arts Inc.| publisher = United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas – Tyler Division| date = 2012-07-20| access-date = 2012-07-21| archive-date = 7 January 2017| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170107064248/http://news.priorsmart.com/uniloc-v-electronic-arts-l6r9/| url-status = dead}} Laminar Research (maker of X-Plane),{{Cite web|url=https://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/details/|title=Details of the Uniloc Lawsuit|website=X-Plane|date=11 September 2012 }}{{Cite web |last=Biggs |first=John |date=2013-02-02 |title=Creator Of The X-Plane Flight Simulator Seeks Help Fighting A Patent Troll |url=https://techcrunch.com/2013/02/02/creator-of-the-x-plane-flight-simulator-seeks-help-fighting-a-patent-troll/ |access-date=2022-10-04 |website=TechCrunch |language=en-US}}

Distinctive Developments, Gameloft, Halfbrick Studios, Madfinger Games and Square Enix.{{cite news|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/259652/electronic_arts_other_game_developers_sued_for_patent_infringement.html|title=Electronic Arts, Other Game Developers, Sued for Patent Infringement|last=Ribeiro|first=John|date=2012-07-23|work=PCWorld|access-date=23 July 2012}} The patent involved in the dispute was invalidated in March 2016.{{cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/game-companies-knock-out-patent-that-slammed-microsoft-with-388m-verdict/ |title=Patent that cost Microsoft millions gets invalidated |first=Joe |last=Mullin |date=25 March 2016 |website=Ars Technica |access-date=17 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190119174356/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/game-companies-knock-out-patent-that-slammed-microsoft-with-388m-verdict/ |archive-date=19 January 2019 |url-status=live}}

{{Reflist|2}}

• {{official website|http://www.uniloc.com}}
• [https://patents.google.com/patent/US5490216 US patent 5,490,216]

Category:Software companies established in 1992

Category:Software companies of Australia

Category:Computer security software companies

Category:Patent law

Category:Australian companies established in 1992

Category:Australian brands