Author Topic: Patent software and sims multiplayer (Read 1003 times)

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #60 on:** July 22, 2003, 10:33:32 AM »

Maybe we could mount a huge b17 mission to fly off map and find the WB MA and just pothole the whole damm place.

Ozark · « **Reply #61 on:** July 22, 2003, 10:42:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Maybe we could mount a huge b17 mission to fly off map and find the WB MA and just pothole the whole damm place.

ROFL!

Sundog · « **Reply #62 on:** July 22, 2003, 09:48:13 PM »

If this is the code that keeps the planes from hopping around (that smoothing code) I can't see where they have a case, but then I 'm not a laywer. I remember the guy who was instrumental in creating Fighter Ace was able to do so because he came up with a "new" efficient smoothing code. At least that's what I was told in the mid 90's when he still owned VR1. Fortunately for me, Jimbear found AH in Beta and got me to fly it.

To me, this sort of reminds me of Henry Ford trying to patent the automobile or the Wright brothers trying to patent the airplane. The courts said they had the rights to THEIR auto and airplane designs, but not ALL auto and airplane designs. I'm not sure if that is a good analogy, but that's how it seems to me anyway.

Vulcan · « **Reply #63 on:** July 22, 2003, 10:15:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Maybe we could mount a huge b17 mission to fly off map and find the WB MA and just pothole the whole damm place.

Wonder if the USAF is thinking the same thing bout their lawsuit?

-dead- · « **Reply #64 on:** July 22, 2003, 10:42:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
The rumors are correct.

IEN Servered us with papers Thursday when I was at the con.

And we have never used the method describied in the pattent.

HiTech

Damn if that isn't surreal on all sorts of levels - must take you right back to working for the idiot. Sued for using your own invention, even though you're not! I wonder if he's trying to achieve a measure of immortality through association with Dilbert's PHB. Were it not for all the legal crap attached it would be hysterically funny. Wild Bill is going even further South than Voss in the credibility department.

humble · « **Reply #65 on:** July 28, 2003, 02:14:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dnil
but if Ien has the lawyers on contigency then it doenst matter how much money they have. Thats what worries me.

I've been on both ends of the legal equation over the years...if the attorney handling the case in doing it on contingency then AH is home free....this is not the type of case that a quality firm handles this way. The issue is to complex and is most likely to be decided by a judge....not a jury, although that would certainly benifit AH (IMO).

From my limited understanding the concept...not the actual code...is at the heart of the issue. If Dale can demonstrate a concept outside the scope of the patent during the pre trial phase he'll get the suit booted fairly easily...otherwise he's sledding up hill. If WB can document that the underlying concept is within the scop of the patent then AH is in a difficult situation.

Stringer · « **Reply #66 on:** July 28, 2003, 02:27:13 PM »

Humble,
Agreed, but (and here's the big butt!)...IF IEN breached the contract through non-payment for the exclusive licensing fees, then they have no grounds for the suit, as it is based upon their suppossed exclusive license of this patented product.

So IEN breached before they could ever be harmed by the non-exclusive use of the product (as it pertains to HTC anyway)

I would attack the breach issue first, as all is goes mute if IEN did, in fact, break the contract.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #67 on:** October 20, 2003, 03:21:02 PM »

i was under the impression that war birds was an almost exact copy of air warrior ( hacking involved ) who holds their patents?

Horn · « **Reply #68 on:** October 20, 2003, 04:22:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
i was under the impression that war birds was an almost exact copy of air warrior ( hacking involved ) who holds their patents?

Neg. WB's (later) and Air Warrior (earlier)were developed separately. Perhaps you are referring to the Russian FreeHost--which was essentially a pirated/hacked copy of WB's. The Russians were able to get away with it due to some patent law wierdness in Russia -- it still exists.

h

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #69 on:** October 20, 2003, 07:01:15 PM »

I took a look at the other thread, man some of the guys over there suck.

Rude jerks, I hope they do not come here.

How can you defend this? LOL

I just can not see how anyone could stick with a company when the guy running it is such a jerk. Well then again, look at the way some of those guys are acting over there.