undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxnorswap3y ago0 comments

Indeed, the odd twist in this story was that he was paid for his work. I was expecting a story about how he was still chasing his money to this day.

I'm fairly sure that no credible lawyer would give him the time of the day if he did try to get more now. He did work, he accepted money for that work and only later he thinks he's entitled to more and wants to re-negotiate.

I don't know about his jurisdiction, but here even as a layman I'm confident that doing the work and accepting the money would be seen as acceptance:

"As well as using words, a contract could be implied by conduct of the parties, for example, by jumping into a black cab and stating your destination, this conduct would be taken as an agreement that the taxi driver will take you to your destination and that you will pay a price for it."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/...

The idea that just because there isn't a written contract that he magically retains the rights is magical thinking and I'm surprised that no-one he's previously told this story to has pointed that out to him.

0 comments

peter4223y ago

If it were so cut and dry they wouldn't have chased his signature years later before the acquisition. A lawyer told them to do that.

I think it's more interesting of a legal case than you give it credit for. He isn't denying he was paid for his time but that the rights for the finished work are still ambiguous.

strken3y ago

If the chance of a legal case going against Microsoft is 0.1% (e.g. his case is really bad), the estimated damages in such a case are enormous (I have no idea what they would be, but e.g. a tiny payment for every copy of Minecraft would be an enormous sum), and the cost of sending him an email is a couple of hundred dollars worth of legal counsel, then why wouldn't they chase him for a signature?

mikkom3y ago

> The idea that just because there isn't a written contract that he magically retains the rights

There is a written contract. They agreed on the price on email and he then took the money.

zimpenfish3y ago

> a contract could be implied by conduct of the parties

There are other cases, though, where the courts have declined to imply transfer of copyright or license - even with a written contract - when it hasn't been explicitly specified.

cf https://www.albright-ip.co.uk/2013/04/implied-assignments/ for one example

> The idea that just because there isn't a written contract that he magically retains the rights is magical thinking

IANAL, obvs., but I think the situation would be "the implied contract would imply a license to use the poem but not transfer of copyright" - the key point would be whether that license was "perpetual, exclusive" to Mojang. If not perpetual, he could revoke it at any time and Microsoft will then have a copyright problem for any copy sold after that point. If exclusive, the license may not have transferred to Microsoft in which case they have an extremely large problem given the number of copies sold since the buyout.

microsoftdoes3y ago

>IANAL

I can tell. None of what you wrote, which is mostly wrong, matters. Microsoft bought Mojang not specific property of Mojang.

zimpenfish3y ago

> Microsoft bought Mojang not specific property of Mojang.

[1] says "When licences are acquired as part of an asset transaction, the contracts are taken over. In that case, the selling and buying parties need the cooperation of the licensor. This cooperation can take place before or possibly after the takeover. If the licence is not transferable, there will in principle not be a legally valid transfer unless the IP right holder in question gives his consent to the transfer of the licence."

Do you have a link to suggest that these definitely-are-lawyers are wrong in this interpretation?

[1] https://www.blatterlegal.com/en/intellectual-property/transf...

1 more reply

jack_pp3y ago

I don't think there's any doubt that Mojang / Microsoft are entitled to use his work. But I don't think it's clear whether he has the rights to the work or not.

zimpenfish3y ago

> But I don't think it's clear whether he has the rights to the work or not.

He owns the copyright, hasn't transferred the copyright, he clearly owns the rights in the work.

> I don't think there's any doubt that Mojang / Microsoft are entitled to use his work.

I think you're right that there's an implied license for them to use it but the scope of that license was never specified and I'd guess a clever lawyer could make reasonable hay from the case that it's now much broader than he wanted.

microsoftdoes3y ago

Nope this guy agreed to it in email. It’s over. License didn’t need to transfer since Microsoft bought Mojang, not just specific property of Mojang.

1 more reply

sudosysgen3y ago

The question is whether Microsoft owns the copyright or merely has permission to use it as the ending for their game. Everyone agrees Microsoft is allowed to use it as the ending to Minecraft, but it doesn't seem like Microsoft owns the copyright to it or the right to use it somewhere else.

Also, Mojang is in breach of the informal contract because they did not give him the promotion they promised.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsxnorswap3y ago0 comments

Indeed, the odd twist in this story was that he was paid for his work. I was expecting a story about how he was still chasing his money to this day.

I don't know about his jurisdiction, but here even as a layman I'm confident that doing the work and accepting the money would be seen as acceptance:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/...

0 comments

peter4223y ago

If it were so cut and dry they wouldn't have chased his signature years later before the acquisition. A lawyer told them to do that.

I think it's more interesting of a legal case than you give it credit for. He isn't denying he was paid for his time but that the rights for the finished work are still ambiguous.

strken3y ago

mikkom3y ago

> The idea that just because there isn't a written contract that he magically retains the rights

There is a written contract. They agreed on the price on email and he then took the money.

zimpenfish3y ago

> a contract could be implied by conduct of the parties

There are other cases, though, where the courts have declined to imply transfer of copyright or license - even with a written contract - when it hasn't been explicitly specified.

cf https://www.albright-ip.co.uk/2013/04/implied-assignments/ for one example

> The idea that just because there isn't a written contract that he magically retains the rights is magical thinking

microsoftdoes3y ago

>IANAL

I can tell. None of what you wrote, which is mostly wrong, matters. Microsoft bought Mojang not specific property of Mojang.

zimpenfish3y ago

> Microsoft bought Mojang not specific property of Mojang.

Do you have a link to suggest that these definitely-are-lawyers are wrong in this interpretation?

[1] https://www.blatterlegal.com/en/intellectual-property/transf...

1 more reply

jack_pp3y ago

I don't think there's any doubt that Mojang / Microsoft are entitled to use his work. But I don't think it's clear whether he has the rights to the work or not.

zimpenfish3y ago

> But I don't think it's clear whether he has the rights to the work or not.

He owns the copyright, hasn't transferred the copyright, he clearly owns the rights in the work.

> I don't think there's any doubt that Mojang / Microsoft are entitled to use his work.

microsoftdoes3y ago

Nope this guy agreed to it in email. It’s over. License didn’t need to transfer since Microsoft bought Mojang, not just specific property of Mojang.

1 more reply

sudosysgen3y ago

Also, Mojang is in breach of the informal contract because they did not give him the promotion they promised.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse