PDA

View Full Version : Lodsys Also Targeting Android Developers with Patent Infringement Claims




MacRumors
May 27, 2011, 01:50 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/27/lodsys-also-targeting-android-developers-with-patent-infringement-claims/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/05/lodsys_wordmark.jpg


Patent holding firm Lodsys made news two weeks ago (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/13/lodsys-threatens-to-sue-app-store-developers-over-purchase-links/) when they sent patent infringement notices to several small iOS developers over the use of In-App purchases and upgrade links in their apps. Lodsys is demanding that developers pay a licensing fee or face a potential lawsuit. While Apple has publicly backed (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/23/apple-backs-developers-against-lodsys-patent-threats-says-devs-undisputedly-licensed/) their iOS developers against Lodsys, the legal status of the entire situation remains murky. Lodsys was still sending out legal notices to iOS developers at least up until Apple's formal response. Apple has claimed that their existing patent licenses cover their developers' usage.

Based on a Google groups discussion (http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss/browse_thread/thread/cc9e7843da5c34b6/6a9241ce21c75568?lnk=gst&q=lodsys#6a9241ce21c75568), it appears that Lodsys is also going after Android developers. At least one Android developer has been targeted with the same Patent infringement claims from Lodsys:We recently implemented in-app purchases for our Android application and several weeks later we received a letter from Lodsys, claiming that we infringed on their patents.

Have any other Android developers out there been sent a letter? Has Google taken any action on this issue yet? Has Google given direction to any developers that have been hit by this? We are obviously a small shop and are not financially capable of defending ourselves over a litigation. This news may even be somewhat reassuring to iOS developers. Like Apple, it seems unlikely that Google will let this stand. Google is also similarly believed to be a licensee of the same patent. Lodsys claims, however, that these licenses do not extend to individual developers on each platform.

Article Link: Lodsys Also Targeting Android Developers with Patent Infringement Claims (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/27/lodsys-also-targeting-android-developers-with-patent-infringement-claims/)



Rodimus Prime
May 27, 2011, 01:58 AM
this is a reason why Apple, Google and MS should all step up and just fight the guy and get the patent declared invalid. Lodsys and others are going to use things like this and target all the devs.

talkingfuture
May 27, 2011, 01:58 AM
If they loose they are going to have one heck of a big legal bill.

ComputersaysNo
May 27, 2011, 02:00 AM
It looks like Lodsys is trying to rewrite the story of David and Goliath. Hitting a giant with a rock is one thing, aggravating giants with billions of dollars is another.

iVirusYx
May 27, 2011, 02:03 AM
Well... you can tell that Lodsys has some huge balls of steel... Going against Apple and Google at the same time... I bet they are soon also targeting Windows Phone developers... :rolleyes: Well, good luck with that Sir!

But in other ways... I think they want to be bought up for a good price... Like this they can force out more money for their company.
Or they can raise the price for the patent so that every developer is under the hood of their platform owners.

batchtaster
May 27, 2011, 02:06 AM
Buy the company, fire all the employees, put the patents into the public domain.

Just out of spite.

jmpnop
May 27, 2011, 02:07 AM
This is too much, Apple has licensed it for developers and it'll will be the same with Google. These careless trolls are desperately trying to make some money. Its time Apple and Google silence these trolls once and for all.

thelonelylimo
May 27, 2011, 02:18 AM
Dan Abelow is really full of himself.

kalsta
May 27, 2011, 02:23 AM
What a unique business goal these guys have — to become the most loathsome stench in the nostrils of developers, corporate giants and public alike, while raking in all the money they can. Somehow I don't imagine the baseball caps with embroidered company logo are a big hit with Lodsys staff.

Mad Pierre
May 27, 2011, 02:23 AM
Buy the company, fire all the employees, put the patents into the public domain.

Just out of spite.

Damn right.

thelonelylimo
May 27, 2011, 02:37 AM
What a unique business goal these guys have — to become the most loathsome stench in the nostrils of developers, corporate giants and public alike, while raking in all the money they can. Somehow I don't imagine the baseball caps with embroidered company logo are a big hit with Lodsys staff.

They're a bunch of crooks.

mw360
May 27, 2011, 02:38 AM
Buy the company, fire all the employees, put the patents into the public domain.

Just out of spite.

I doubt it has any employees. What would they do all day? And to buy the company you'd need to give them lots of money. It's probably exactly what they're after.

mw360
May 27, 2011, 02:43 AM
I imagine Google will step in now that Apple did.

And they can save a buck by copying Apple's cease&desist letter and changing the names.

cal6n
May 27, 2011, 02:59 AM
This is too much, Apple has licensed it for developers and it'll will be the same with Google. These careless trolls are desperately trying to make some money. Its time Apple and Google silence these trolls once and for all.

Maybe not. Part of Apple's legal argument is that their developers are covered due to the curated (google would say "closed") nature of the ecosystem. Here's a quote from Apple's response:

"These licensed products and services enable Apple’s App Makers to communicate with end users through the use of Apple’s own licensed hardware, software, APIs, memory, servers, and interfaces, including Apple’s App Store."

Android's "open" nature means that developers are not obliged to use google's channels and users are able to download apps from anywhere and install them via their SD cards. This is a very different legal situation and I can't see Apple's argument applying to android.


I imagine Google will step in now that Apple did.

Again, maybe not. Google have shown a distinct reluctance to stand up for hardware manufacturers hit by patent litigation. Why should they treat their developers any differently?

ChazUK
May 27, 2011, 03:05 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

What other application stores have in app purchases? (Windows Marketplace, OVI Store, Blackberry Appworld etc)

I wonder if this will overspill onto even more places. Could the likes of PSN and Xbox Live be dragged in too? Would be interesting to see if they're willing to take on some big game developers in the console world too.

spillproof
May 27, 2011, 03:22 AM
Again, maybe not. Google have shown a distinct reluctance to stand up for hardware manufacturers hit by patent litigation. Why should they treat their developers any differently?

Why would a software company defend the hardware manufactures? Thats like blaming the electrical company when your light bulb burns out.

cal6n
May 27, 2011, 03:31 AM
Why would a software company defend the hardware manufactures? Thats like blaming the electrical company when your light bulb burns out.

But google won't even indemnify its hardware partners where it comes to their use of google's software.

And the situation is similar regarding their video codec.

cal6n
May 27, 2011, 03:54 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

What other application stores have in app purchases? (Windows Marketplace, OVI Store, Blackberry Appworld etc)

I wonder if this will overspill onto even more places. Could the likes of PSN and Xbox Live be dragged in too? Would be interesting to see if they're willing to take on some big game developers in the console world too.

I'm not familiar with the other mainstream mobile stores but they, along with PSN and XBL, could likely use the same closed-ecosystem argument that Apple have put forward.

Apple's argument almost certainly does not apply to one group of developers, though, and that's the jailbreak crew. I doubt very much if Cydia has licensed their technology and Apple's walled garden argument would not apply there, even if they had.

kiljoy616
May 27, 2011, 04:28 AM
No wonder big companies are patenting even the Air that flows throught their products this stuff is now officially one broken system. :mad:

KnightWRX
May 27, 2011, 04:34 AM
Maybe not. Part of Apple's legal argument is that their developers are covered due to the curated (google would say "closed") nature of the ecosystem. Here's a quote from Apple's response:

"These licensed products and services enable Apple’s App Makers to communicate with end users through the use of Apple’s own licensed hardware, software, APIs, memory, servers, and interfaces, including Apple’s App Store."

Android's "open" nature means that developers are not obliged to use google's channels and users are able to download apps from anywhere and install them via their SD cards. This is a very different legal situation and I can't see Apple's argument applying to android.


The patent is not about downloading and installing apps though. As long as developers only use Google's In-App Billing and go through the Market, they would be as covered as iOS developers IF the license Google and Apple does have does indeed cover these frameworks.

In-App billing requires use of the market.

brettryan
May 27, 2011, 04:44 AM
This is becoming beyond the joke, are they going to target Firefox for allowing web applications to have "shopping carts" they could stretch the truth to believe that this is "in app" since it's "in the browser"

At first this story was a nuisance, but now it's getting me a little more than annoyed. As a fellow developer I can understand the pain that these small independent developers are facing.

The whole patent model is getting old, I'm sick of hearing about companies taking each other to court.

gnasher729
May 27, 2011, 04:45 AM
Buy the company, fire all the employees, put the patents into the public domain.

Just out of spite.

There is nothing that the owners of Lodsys would love more. Money is all they are after, and employees just cost them money.


Apple's argument almost certainly does not apply to one group of developers, though, and that's the jailbreak crew. I doubt very much if Cydia has licensed their technology and Apple's walled garden argument would not apply there, even if they had.

Does Cydia implement Lodsys' patents? Can you do in-app purchases that talk to Cydia servers? If so, they might be infringing on this patent. However, suing Cydia would be an admission by Lodsys that Apple's arguments are right, that only Apple (and Google, and perhaps Cydia) need a patent license, and not the individual developers. So Lodsys might be very hesitant to go against Cydia.

Popeye206
May 27, 2011, 04:54 AM
this is a reason why Apple, Google and MS should all step up and just fight the guy and get the patent declared invalid. Lodsys and others are going to use things like this and target all the devs.

Microsoft too? They make a smart phone OS??? :p

0815
May 27, 2011, 04:55 AM
Lets hope Google does also the right thing and steps in.

This is assuming that the Android developers are using a Google/Android provided API and the Google servers for implementation - if they did their own mechanism they would be unfortunately on their own since that wouldn't be covered by the Google license.

Would be nice if for once Google and Apple would join forces, work together, and crush this patent troll.


Does Cydia implement Lodsys' patents? Can you do in-app purchases that talk to Cydia servers? If so, they might be infringing on this patent. However, suing Cydia would be an admission by Lodsys that Apple's arguments are right, that only Apple (and Google, and perhaps Cydia) need a patent license, and not the individual developers. So Lodsys might be very hesitant to go against Cydia.

This might be a nice backup strategy for Lodsys if it turns out that they can't go after Apple developers that use the 'official' API ... . Once there cases against Apple developers is denied by courts they can go after Cydia developers.

MorphingDragon
May 27, 2011, 05:03 AM
Microsoft too? They make a smart phone OS??? :p

WP7 is head and shoulders above Android.

BLACKFRIDAY
May 27, 2011, 05:13 AM
Maybe not. Part of Apple's legal argument is that their developers are covered due to the curated (google would say "closed") nature of the ecosystem. Here's a quote from Apple's response:

"These licensed products and services enable Apple’s App Makers to communicate with end users through the use of Apple’s own licensed hardware, software, APIs, memory, servers, and interfaces, including Apple’s App Store."

Android's "open" nature means that developers are not obliged to use google's channels and users are able to download apps from anywhere and install them via their SD cards. This is a very different legal situation and I can't see Apple's argument applying to android.


I think so too.

It's not really that different, but implications for Android and iOS are entirely different and there may be a cost now.

Again, maybe not. Google have shown a distinct reluctance to stand up for hardware manufacturers hit by patent litigation. Why should they treat their developers any differently?

Google will definitely step in; now that Apple already has. They don't have a choice. They might lose but they are definitely going to show interest to developer's request void any future lawsuits.

foodog
May 27, 2011, 05:42 AM
Well... you can tell that Lodsys has some huge balls of steel... Going against Apple and Google at the same time... I bet they are soon also targeting Windows Phone developers... :rolleyes: Well, good luck with that Sir!

But in other ways... I think they want to be bought up for a good price... Like this they can force out more money for their company.
Or they can raise the price for the patent so that every developer is under the hood of their platform owners.

Apple has already paid them for licensing... they have already said all thier developers are covered by this. Google and MS??

ChazUK
May 27, 2011, 05:54 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Well... you can tell that Lodsys has some huge balls of steel... Going against Apple and Google at the same time... I bet they are soon also targeting Windows Phone developers... :rolleyes: Well, good luck with that Sir!

But in other ways... I think they want to be bought up for a good price... Like this they can force out more money for their company.
Or they can raise the price for the patent so that every developer is under the hood of their platform owners.

Apple has already paid them for licensing... they have already said all thier developers are covered by this. Google and MS??

I'm sure Lodsys originally said that Apple, Microsoft and Google are licenced to use this patent.

KnightWRX
May 27, 2011, 05:56 AM
Does Cydia implement Lodsys' patents? Can you do in-app purchases that talk to Cydia servers? If so, they might be infringing on this patent.

Infringment does not depend only on in-app purchases. Developers who were simply linking back to their full app on the App Store from their lite-app also received letters.

This is larger than in-app purchases/in-app billing.

Anyway, am I the only one who read the part in the summary that mentionned Lodsys does not agree with Apple's assertion that their license covers developers ?

Lodsys claims, however, that these licenses do not extend to individual developers on each platform.

This I think is the biggest news item in this story. This means Lodsys will eventually sue a developer directly and that poor soul is going to have to bear the brunt of the assault and pay legal costs to either fight it or will have to license the patent.

I think so too.

It's not really that different, but implications for Android and iOS are entirely different and there may be a cost now.

They aren't really. If the license Google/Apple have for the patent is indeed valid and covers developers, it just means if you want to offer "upgrades" in your app, you now have to do so using the approved methods only (in-app billing/in-app purchases). You can't use outside methods anymore (like putting up a free Lite app on the App Store and just putting up a link to the full app on a screen in your application).

Same applies to both Android and iOS.

MorphingDragon
May 27, 2011, 06:04 AM
Infringment does not depend only on in-app purchases. Developers who were simply linking back to their full app on the App Store from their lite-app also received letters.

WTF!? Completely retarded.

Wouldn't Shareware from the 90s which reference the maker's website constitute as prior art then? As far as I can see the first Lodsys patent was granted in 1997? Quake Shareware referenced the full version on the ID website for purchase in 1996.

http://web.archive.org/web/19961220090258/http://www.idsoftware.com/shopping/smauls.html

rdlink
May 27, 2011, 06:10 AM
Microsoft too? They make a smart phone OS??? :p

Microsoft and smart? :p

rdlink
May 27, 2011, 06:15 AM
WP7 is head and shoulders above Android.

Lol. Thanks for the Friday laugh.

Hilariously ironic that WP7, whose biggest selling point should be integration with already used MS enterprise apps, is not enterprise ready...

MorphingDragon
May 27, 2011, 06:16 AM
Lol. Thanks for the Friday laugh.

Hilariously ironic that WP7, whose biggest selling point should be integration with already used MS enterprise apps, is not enterprise ready...

Its more "enterprise ready" (Biggest buzzword in the world) than Android, and this is coming for a person who specializes in Linux infrastructure.

KnightWRX
May 27, 2011, 06:18 AM
WTF!? Completely retarded.

Wouldn't Shareware from the 90s which reference the maker's website constitute as prior art then? As far as I can see the first Lodsys patent was granted in 1997? Quake Shareware referenced the full version on the ID website for purchase in 1996.

http://web.archive.org/web/19961220090258/http://www.idsoftware.com/shopping/smauls.html

Reference and linking back are not the same thing. Lodsys' patent was applied for in 1988 I think, even though it was granted in 1997. Prior art would have to be before then.

Also a big part of the patent is collecting "feedback" and sending it back to a central source (linking back to the app store, which registers the user's click after reading the question "Did you like this app ?"). Shareware that only displayed a page with information does not constitute prior art as it lacks the "gathering information" and "sending it back to a central location" parts of the patent.

MorphingDragon
May 27, 2011, 06:27 AM
Reference and linking back are not the same thing. Lodsys' patent was applied for in 1988 I think, even though it was granted in 1997. Prior art would have to be before then.

The earliest confirmed number I can find is applied for in 1997 and published in 1999, this is from the patents that Lodsys list on their website and searching Daniel H Abelow in patent databases.

Also a big part of the patent is collecting "feedback" and sending it back to a central source (linking back to the app store, which registers the user's click after reading the question "Did you like this app ?"). Shareware that only displayed a page with information does not constitute prior art as it lacks the "gathering information" and "sending it back to a central location" parts of the patent.

The patents are written really ambiguously. Nouns are "the invention" and the like. Some dirtbag lawyer could word it so something as trivial as logs could be a central source.

Hey, badly written legal documents deserve a really bad interpretation. :D

KnightWRX
May 27, 2011, 06:30 AM
The earliest confirmed number I can find is applied for in 1997 and published in 1999, this is from the patents that Lodsys list on their website and searching Daniel H Abelow in patent databases.

Search harder, someone posted the information in another thread. Basically the patent was filed and then amended for quite some time before being actually granted. It is a very old patent.

The patents are written really ambiguously. Everything is "the invention" or the like. Some dirtbag lawyer could word it so telephone logs could be a central source.

Read the abstract. It's not so ambiguous. It has to be over a network, so no, a telephone log can't be a central source. This is really a "do something we've all done before, OVER THE INTERNET!" type patent that was filed in the darker days of the Internet (late 80s, early 90s).

MorphingDragon
May 27, 2011, 06:39 AM
Search harder, someone posted the information in another thread. Basically the patent was filed and then amended for quite some time before being actually granted. It is a very old patent.

Crap, hate using MRoogle, takes so long to find anything specific.



Read the abstract. It's not so ambiguous. It has to be over a network, so no, a telephone log can't be a central source. This is really a "do something we've all done before, OVER THE INTERNET!" type patent that was filed in the darker days of the Internet (late 80s, early 90s).

[quote]The invention may be embedded in products or services that contain a microprocessor and a facility for communication.

Does not have to be the internet explicitly using that wording.

mw360
May 27, 2011, 06:42 AM
The patents are written really ambiguously. Nouns are "the invention" and the like. Some dirtbag lawyer could word it so something as trivial as logs could be a central source.

Hey, badly written legal documents deserve a really bad interpretation. :D

Hmm, are you talking as a lawyer now, or just as someone who thinks it all reads a bit funny? I think that affects what value to place on your commentary. Writing patent applications isn't the same as writing a piece for Engadget you know?

KnightWRX
May 27, 2011, 06:43 AM
Does not have to be the internet explicitly using that wording.

No, it could also be a BBS, but who uses those anymore ? ;)

The individual claims further clarify that this requires electronic transfer.

MorphingDragon
May 27, 2011, 06:47 AM
No, it could also be a BBS, but who uses those anymore ? ;)

The individual claims further clarify that this requires electronic transfer.

It does not seem to make a distinction between digital and analog electronics for the communication method, that provides a lot of wriggle room for more terrible wording and half arsed internet arguments over nothing.

On a further note, are we really arguing over whether a patent that is being used for blatant trolling is ambiguous in wording?

Hmm, are you talking as a lawyer now, or just as someone who thinks it all reads a bit funny? I think that affects what value to place on your commentary. Writing patent applications isn't the same as writing a piece for Engadget you know?

This. Is. MacRumors. Most of the commentary is going to be meaningless beyond actual lawyers, even then a lot of the known lawyers here aren't posting or are just giving personal opinions.

SactoGuy18
May 27, 2011, 06:59 AM
I wonder does Lodsys know about the why the Feds went after the United Shoe Machinery Company for patent abuse during the first half of the 20th Century.

Nodsys could be charged with possible restraint of trade based on the Sherman and/or Clayton Antitrust Acts.

jonnysods
May 27, 2011, 07:01 AM
Wow, now Lodsys just put another 100 top lawyers against them.

This is like gambling for these guys. Right now they are "all in"

BLACKFRIDAY
May 27, 2011, 07:18 AM
They aren't really. If the license Google/Apple have for the patent is indeed valid and covers developers, it just means if you want to offer "upgrades" in your app, you now have to do so using the approved methods only (in-app billing/in-app purchases). You can't use outside methods anymore (like putting up a free Lite app on the App Store and just putting up a link to the full app on a screen in your application).

Same applies to both Android and iOS.

What if a developer is using the API's to sell an app outside Android Marketplace?

KnightWRX
May 27, 2011, 07:21 AM
What if a developer is using the API's to sell an app outside Android Marketplace?

You can't use In-App Billing outside the Android Market. So I don't quite get your point. The situations are analogous.

ciTiger
May 27, 2011, 07:37 AM
I hope to see a clarification by courts regarding this soon!
Things should be clear about whether we developers have something to worry about or not...

chrono1081
May 27, 2011, 07:44 AM
I can't wait to see how this all pans out. I hope Google and Apple (and Microsoft since I'm sure they are next) bankrupt the **** out of Lodsys.

caspersoong
May 27, 2011, 08:17 AM
Awesome. About time. Hope Google does not defend their developers if it costs money.

rockosmodurnlif
May 27, 2011, 08:21 AM
Apple and then Google? If the government made mobile applications wherein you could purchase features within the app, then Lodsys could take on them as well. This company must be nothing but lawyers.

JAT
May 27, 2011, 08:28 AM
The earliest confirmed number I can find is applied for in 1997 and published in 1999, this is from the patents that Lodsys list on their website and searching Daniel H Abelow in patent databases.

IIRC, the patent itself has the dates.

dagamer34
May 27, 2011, 08:59 AM
RELEASE THE KRAKEN!

I hope Apple and Google just devour those pieces of s$*(.

Necross
May 27, 2011, 09:48 AM
what a d-bag. Apple won't let him win his stupid lawsuit, so now he's gonna go target everyone else. I'm sure (well I hope anyway) that Google, Microsoft and Blackberry won't let this guy get away with it.

iCrizzo
May 27, 2011, 10:01 AM
If they loose they are going to have one heck of a big legal bill.


I believe that Lodsys is representing themselves. I believe the owner/patent holder is a lawyer.

Xero910
May 27, 2011, 10:18 AM
Could be tricky for Android. Developers don't have to use Google's stuff to distribute or create apps, very different than iOS. I'm not sure how far Google's reach goes, even if they do license it. Some of these dev's might be on their own.

shartypants
May 27, 2011, 10:37 AM
Since Lodsys apparently basing their whole business on charging licensing fees, maybe they should change their name to FeeSys, it would be much more appropriate in at least two ways :)

Bwinski
May 27, 2011, 01:11 PM
In many parts of the world, driving along any highway at sunset brings out all sorts of creatures that fly thru the air and end up on your windscreen all smushed and squirting from all sides... That sounds like the fate Lodsys is working on for itself...

Good luck with that....

Rodimus Prime
May 27, 2011, 01:19 PM
My hope that Google, Apple and others go threw the patents they license from the company that lodsys bought up and start tossing out the crap like this one and then say nope to it and reduce the fees. They got it part of a huge group at one time so there were some crap ones but the company that was licensing to Google and others was doing it huge group so many of them really good and legit.

kdarling
May 27, 2011, 02:29 PM
Lodsys claims, however, that these licenses do not extend to individual developers on each platform.

Lodsys must not have negotiated good terms with Apple and Google.

Otherwise they shouldn't put that license at risk by going after pennies from developers.

Again, maybe not. Google have shown a distinct reluctance to stand up for hardware manufacturers hit by patent litigation.

If a lawsuit has nothing to do with their software, why would they?

OTOH, when Apple sued HTC over Android related OS issues, Google immediately mailed bloggers to say that “We are not a party to this lawsuit. However, we stand behind our Android operating system and the partners who have helped us to develop it.”

Rodimus Prime
May 27, 2011, 02:34 PM
Lodsys must not have negotiated good terms with Apple and Google.

Otherwise they shouldn't put that license at risk by going after pennies from developers..”

Lodsys did not negotiate with the Google and others. Lodsys bought up another company that already had a deal with Apple sand Google. My understanding is it was a huge block of parents so there is bound to be some crap ones in that huge block. The Lodsys just going threw the patents looking for ways to make a quick buck.

ranReloaded
May 28, 2011, 12:14 PM
Since Lodsys apparently basing their whole business on charging licensing fees, maybe they should change their name to FeeSys, it would be much more appropriate in at least two ways :)

How about "LoadShyt"?

ranReloaded
May 28, 2011, 12:18 PM
"Getting developers sued by LodSys... Check!"

(Someone in Google headquarters just added a new android "feature" copied from the iPhone)

ranReloaded
May 28, 2011, 12:22 PM
Lodsys must not have negotiated good terms with Apple and Google.

Otherwise they shouldn't put that license at risk by going after pennies from developers.



If a lawsuit has nothing to do with their software, why would they?

OTOH, when Apple sued HTC over Android related OS issues, Google immediately mailed bloggers to say that “We are not a party to this lawsuit. However, we stand behind our Android operating system and the partners who have helped us to develop it.”

Apple should sue Samsung because the Galaxy S looks just like the iPhone... 3GS! LOL

Oh, wait... They did!

ranReloaded
May 28, 2011, 12:32 PM
...In any case, I thought "ideas" were not patentable; only implementations. I must be wrong. If any lawyers present would kindly like to enlighten...

mw360
May 28, 2011, 02:01 PM
How about "LoadShyt"?

LodCyst?