[noonespecial]

This argument seems fishy. He could have "licensed it" for $1 if that were the case. Instead, reading between the lines here, it sounds like he caused considerable hardship and non-trivial money to the creator of something that was essentially still in the "free beta" stage of development.

He can say whatever he wants to ease his conscience, if it walks like a troll...

[jjoonathan]

I'd have to hear the conditions of the license before I actually accused him of actually being a troll (p=30% in my book). I suspect the license actually was $1, 10% of revenue on a program understood to be freeware, 1 license to run the program should it become payed, 1 free beer should they meet, etc (fine in my book -- it's a defensive patent). But it could have been something that I would consider abusive. I just don't know.

I hesitantly accept the story as presented by these two business partners. But do I think it's "Un-fucking-believable" that someone would come to the opposite conclusion? Absolutely not. I do think it's puzzling that he doesn't realize that the ONLY thing we have to go on is his word and the word of somebody heavily incentivized to not badmouth him, and that this puts everyone else in a position of extreme uncertainty. That attitude smacks of "it's not trolling when I do it" and does slightly reduce the credibility of the claim. But only slightly -- I stand by my p=70% estimate that they're genuine and I can understand the frustration of having people assume the opposite.

[grrowl]

Craig hold a patent (not unreasonable in this day and age); Ricci was made aware Craig held that patent; They amicably settled for a reasonable, and small, amount.

What's the problem here? Spend your efforts writing to your members of parliament or donating to anti-patent organisations.

[Alupis]

"amicably" and "reasonable" by the patent holder's terms...

Your parent comment has a good point.

[tzs]

The licensee says it was "very amicable" in his tweet on the matter, cited elsewhere in this discussion.