PDA

View Full Version : Lodsys Responds to Apple, Files Lawsuits Against App Developers




MacRumors
May 31, 2011, 04:03 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/lodsys-responds-to-apple-files-lawsuits-against-app-developers/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/05/lodsys_lawsuits_png.png


Patent holding firm Lodsys today published a series of blog posts revealing that the company has filed suit (http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/why-did-lodsys-sue-some-app-developers-on-may-31-2011.html) against App Store developers, accelerating its efforts to extract licensing fees (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/13/lodsys-threatens-to-sue-app-store-developers-over-purchase-links/) from developers for using in app purchases and upgrade links in their App Store applications. Lodsys had given developers 21 days to negotiate a license before filing suit, but the firm appears to have initiated lawsuits early in order to thwart Apple's efforts (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/23/apple-backs-developers-against-lodsys-patent-threats-says-devs-undisputedly-licensed/) to back the developers.Q: Why did Lodsys sue some App Developers on May 31, 2011?

Lodsys chose to move its litigation timing to an earlier date than originally planned, in response to Apple's threat, in order to preserve its legal options.Lodsys has also disputed (http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/apples-license-claim-disputed1.html) Apple's assertion that developers are "undeniably licensed" for the technology by virtue of an existing licensing arrangement between Apple and Lodsys.[Apple's] letter was very surprising as Apple and Lodsys were in confidential discussions and there was clearly disagreement on the interpretation of the license terms of Apple's agreement. Before, during and after these interactions, Lodsys has carefully considered this issue and consulted several legal experts to consider Apple's claims. We stand firm and restate our previous position that it is the 3rd party Developers that are responsible for the infringement of Lodsys' patents and they are responsible for securing the rights for their applications. Developers relying on Apple's letter do so to their own detriment and are strongly urged to review Apple's own developer agreements to determine the true extent of Apple's responsibilities to them.Simultaneous to the blog posting, Lodsys says that is has sent a detailed legal response to Apple, which it has invited the company to publish in its entirety.

Finally, Lodsys has announced (http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/-responsibility-and-accountability-lodsys-usd1000-offer.html) that will reimburse any developer improperly targeted by an infringement notice $1,000 for their troubles, suggesting that firm is confident in its standing and convinced that it will prevail.While it is true that Apple and Lodsys have an obvious dispute about the scope of Apple's license to the Lodsys Patents, we are willing to put our money where our mouth is and pay you something if we are wrong. Therefore, Lodsys offers to pay $1,000 to each entity to whom we have sent an infringement notice for infringement on the iOS platform, or that we send a notice to in the future, if it turns out that the scope of Apple's existing license rights apply to fully license you with respect to our claim relating to your App on Apple iOS.

Article Link: Lodsys Responds to Apple, Files Lawsuits Against App Developers (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/lodsys-responds-to-apple-files-lawsuits-against-app-developers/)



ChazUK
May 31, 2011, 04:05 PM
Utter bastards.

I'm not a fan of this whole thing at all.

Krizoitz
May 31, 2011, 04:07 PM
Apple Ninja Lawyers deployed in 3....2...1...

ImNoSuperMan
May 31, 2011, 04:07 PM
I hope these frigging trolls die!

(Feel free to go cry on your blog/site about people wising for you to die. YDI)

miles01110
May 31, 2011, 04:08 PM
Hopefully Apple will be able to work it out. As much as I don't like the iOS walled garden, I dislike the precedent of patent trolls stymieing creative development with frivolous lawsuits even more.

chrono1081
May 31, 2011, 04:09 PM
I hope Apple, Google, and whoever else these trolls decide to sue destroy the **** out of Lodsys until they are bankrupt.

hobo.hopkins
May 31, 2011, 04:09 PM
I really don't like the idea of App Developers being sued in droves. I hope that Apple is correct in it's understanding of any agreements so that the developers won't have to worry.

LastLine
May 31, 2011, 04:11 PM
There's two ways to look at this.


a) Loadsys are actually write - developers should be responsible. If this is the case, Apple should have caught this and owe the developers their support to negotiate these licenses.

or

b) Loadsys are in fact wrong, and will be found to be so, the developers targetted get $1k (small peanuts compared to the stress I'm sure many are feeling in their positions) and again - Apple need to support the devs.

inket
May 31, 2011, 04:11 PM
Apple should sue the **** out of Lodsys.

Andronicus
May 31, 2011, 04:12 PM
"Choo wanna go to war?! C'mon. Choo wanna go to war? We take you to war, ok?!"

ridley182
May 31, 2011, 04:12 PM
I hope Apple flattens these bastards.

BC2009
May 31, 2011, 04:12 PM
I hope Apple buries Lodsys in lawsuits of their own and bankrupts these jerks. I know they think that death threats are "so uncool", so I just wish they all contract severe illness and suffer terribly (without actually dying). These parasites do nothing to contribute to society because they don't create anything, they just try to leach off those that do truly create.

jayducharme
May 31, 2011, 04:14 PM
Apple should sue the **** out of Lodsys.

Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

ouimetnick
May 31, 2011, 04:14 PM
I thought they were scared of Apple's letter, and decided to bully Android instead?

Guess not.

I hope Apple defends their developers and Lodsys get what they are asking for... I hope Lodsys gets drained dry of their crap.

Patent troll.:mad:

addicted44
May 31, 2011, 04:15 PM
Hopefully Apple will be able to work it out. As much as I don't like the iOS walled garden, I dislike the precedent of patent trolls stymieing creative development with frivolous lawsuits even more.

How are those two things even remotely related?

mtbgtr
May 31, 2011, 04:16 PM
Lodsys doesn't expect to get the $$ from the developers.They want a big pay out from Apple, so they start by f'in off the developers to get Apple in the ring. I don't see any other reason to stir the giant.

AppleDroid
May 31, 2011, 04:16 PM
Lodsys is counting on Apple paying more money to cover developers because they know app devs cannot afford to get hit with every single patent lawsuit that this will surely open the door to.

WiiDSmoker
May 31, 2011, 04:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

gnasher729
May 31, 2011, 04:18 PM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

That would indeed be the most costly move that Apple could ever make. Hordes of owners of useless patents will start suing developers in the hope of being bought by Apple.

Do you really think Apple should reward despicable behaviour like this?

benthewraith
May 31, 2011, 04:19 PM
I hope Apple, Google, and whoever else these trolls decide to sue destroy the **** out of Lodsys until they are bankrupt.

Lodsys is forming a triumvirate by bringing Microsoft, Apple and Google against it. My guess is they're hoping to be paid off. I don't think Apple, Microsoft and Google should settle. I say Apple/MSFT/GOOGLE should drain them dry until Lodsys can no longer pay their lawyers.

qtx43
May 31, 2011, 04:20 PM
A thousand dollars is nothing when you need to hire lawyers.

gcoghill
May 31, 2011, 04:20 PM
This seems like something so basic that Apple's lawyers should have asked when they were negotiating the deal: "This covers usage by our 3rd party developers, right?".

If Apple screwed up, they they did so big time. However Lodsys waiting until that service was used thousands of times by thousands of developers is total BS — they knew the first week that version of iOS was released whether or not they felt they had a claim to make.

Instead they wait for it to get fully adopted and entrenched and then go after everyone? There should be some sort of statute of limitations on that kind of sleazy activity. Again, assuming Lodsys is in the right.

ghostface147
May 31, 2011, 04:21 PM
Well, let's see how this works.

bozzykid
May 31, 2011, 04:22 PM
Apple should sue the **** out of Lodsys.

It really wouldn't help the app developers though since an Apple lawsuit would be separate from any action Lodsys is taking against individual developers. The problem is most of these developers are not big entities and can't afford a legal battle.

squirrellydw
May 31, 2011, 04:23 PM
screw them, tell all DEVS to remove all in-app purchase's and not use it.

Rodimus Prime
May 31, 2011, 04:23 PM
Lodsys is forming a triumvirate by bringing Microsoft, Apple and Google against it. My guess is they're hoping to be paid off. I don't think Apple, Microsoft and Google should settle. I say Apple/MSFT/GOOGLE should drain them dry until Lodsys can no longer pay their lawyers.

yep. MS Apple, and Google should go threw that huge block of patents that license from the company that Lodsys bought up and go after every patent they believe is unenforable or not really a patent and then say NOPE do not need to pay it and reduce the fee by X amount per patent and keep doing that.

Cut of Lodsys from the fees it already is collecting and remove lodsys from pointing back at MS Apple and Google saying LOOK LOOK they licensed them.

dashiel
May 31, 2011, 04:23 PM
I encourage all developers to find the most pain in the ass way to pay Lodsys if they eventually win this BS case (let’s face it these ridiculous patents seem to win more often than they lose).

1) Write one check in the amount of .517¢ for each app you sell
2) Send them a penny for each app you sell, claim you’re doing them a favor by rounding up
3) Send them the money in Congolese Francs, or some equally volatile currency
4) Gift them your app and create a infinite loop that may or may not end the universe

camnchar
May 31, 2011, 04:23 PM
It is in Apple's best interest to fight this all the way, with every resource they can bring to bear. If they don't pay now and crush Lodsys decisively -- hopefully with a very clear legal precedent set to dissuade future patent trolls -- they'll be paying a lot more to a lot more patent holders in the future.

tbrinkma
May 31, 2011, 04:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

Or, maybe he's just capable of evaluating the merits of the individual actions based on the available information, rather than just having a knee-jerk response.

The Lodsys patent (having read it) appears to cover things that were both obvious and common (non-novel) at the time of original filing. The Apple vs. Samsung action is based on design patents, which (despite the name) have more in common with trademark and copyright than 'normal' patents.

ThunderSkunk
May 31, 2011, 04:25 PM
Way to ensure no one ever wants to license any of your ip ever.
Oh well, that's what you're stuck doing when your whole business is based on buying bad patents.

I wish patent law worked like this in my industry. In our case, we can spend tens of thousands patenting a mechanism we're developing, but if we don't actually build it and bring it to market within about two years, anyone & their brother can look at our patent, build it, sell it, and get away with it.

Full of Win
May 31, 2011, 04:26 PM
1000$ - What, do they think lawyers drive Yugo's ?


This is a fraction of the amount it would take to mount a defense. To suggest such a small amount would be beneficial is insulting. I hope Apple engages them in long, expensive and protracted legal battles...and wears them down finically.

dashiel
May 31, 2011, 04:26 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

There is a massive difference between a company that actively engages in R&D that results in patents and eventually products to the consumer market and a a lawyer with some cash to buy up some patents whose sole intent is to wait for a mark to get big enough and sue them.

If you cannot see the difference between these two scenarios then you’re a bigger fanboy than those you cast aspersions on.

Warbrain
May 31, 2011, 04:27 PM
Smart of them to sue before WWDC so all those developers can talk to Apple off the record. :rolleyes:

jclardy
May 31, 2011, 04:27 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

Those two are not even comparable.

Lodsys -> Suing small, independent development shops who would be put into the ground by legal fees to guard patents from 20 years ago that it doesn't use and never intends on using other than for trolling.

Apple -> Suing a large corporation (Samsung) to defend its intellectual property. And samsung has a countersuit anyways because it can afford one.

It is like saying that a heavyweight boxer fighting another heavyweight is the same as a schoolyard bully beating up a random kid for his lunch money.

Bonte
May 31, 2011, 04:27 PM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

Is Lodsys for sale?

NAG
May 31, 2011, 04:28 PM
I figured it wasn't the last we heard of these guys. They went through the trouble to claim they weren't patent trolls after the initial outrage, they won't be stopped by an initial Apple statement (they had to have predicted Apple would respond). Hopefully Apple can protect the developers without giving in to this hostage taking.

Kilamite
May 31, 2011, 04:29 PM
I wish patent law worked like this in my industry. In our case, we can spend tens of thousands patenting a mechanism we're developing, but if we don't actually build it and bring it to market within about two years, anyone & their brother can look at our patent, build it, sell it, and get away with it.

I'm glad it isn't like you hope in certain industries! That would just slow down innovation. If you can't build it, then you failed. If someone else sees your patent, and manages to build it, they succeeded.

In the end, the consumer wins, because they get a product or service that was actually able to be built in the first place.

0815
May 31, 2011, 04:32 PM
let the fighting begin ....


I hope the $1000 are in addition to taking care of the cost of the lawyers ....

neilw
May 31, 2011, 04:32 PM
A troll like Lodsys is certain to have a certain bankroll available for pursuing legal action; that, after all, is a (the?) fundamental aspect of their business. So I wouldn't them to go quietly for fear of legal action by Apple. However, whatever resources Lodsys may have, Apple certainly has a lot more.

The big question is how (if?) Apple will protect its developers. A legal conflict between Apple and Lodsys doesn't protect the developer. I imagine this will be a lively topic of conversation at WWDC. :)

paradox00
May 31, 2011, 04:33 PM
This seems like something so basic that Apple's lawyers should have asked when they were negotiating the deal: "This covers usage by our 3rd party developers, right?".

If Apple screwed up, they they did so big time. However Lodsys waiting until that service was used thousands of times by thousands of developers is total BS — they knew the first week that version of iOS was released whether or not they felt they had a claim to make.

Instead they wait for it to get fully adopted and entrenched and then go after everyone? There should be some sort of statute of limitations on that kind of sleazy activity. Again, assuming Lodsys is in the right.

Apple never licensed this patent specifically. It was part of a whole pool of patents they licensed, there was no negotiation for this individual patent. In fact, if challenged in court, the patent would likely be invalidated. Apple saying their license covers third parties is just the easiest approach to dealing with this troll (easier than saying the patent is invalid). I hope Apple goes to bat for these developers and puts the patent troll in its place.

Full of Win
May 31, 2011, 04:34 PM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

This sends the wrong message. The right message should be - if you harass our developers we will DESTROY you.

Apple has so much cash that I think they would rather send a forceful message at the risk of spending a few million.

ThunderSkunk
May 31, 2011, 04:36 PM
I'm glad it isn't like you hope in certain industries! That would just slow down innovation. If you can't build it, then you failed. If someone else sees your patent, and manages to build it, they succeeded. In the end, the consumer wins.

Yep, that's one way it can go. I can think of dozens of great systems that died on the vine because they were big enough they could afford to knob-twiddle forever.

But the other way it can go is that cheap bastards and imitators rush your product to market while you're refining & doing it right. They do it poorly, ruin the perception of the product, and by the time yours is ready, the market for it is non-existent, and investment capital for a proper launch & production is gone. The end result to the "consumer" is, new systems are seen as unreliable fads, and you're stuck with the same old tech, your innovators are driven out of the biz for greener pastures, and your industry stagnates for years on end.

Both seem to happen in our industry with appalling regularity. The patent system sucks.

NAG
May 31, 2011, 04:38 PM
This sends the wrong message. The right message should be - if you harass our developers we will DESTROY you.

Apple has so much cash that I think they would rather send a forceful message at the risk of spending a few million.

Agreed, Lodsys is approaching this in an extremely scummy way that Apple cannot afford to let pass because it would encourage copy cats (i.e. want a pay out, sue iOS developers and Apple will buy you).

GFLPraxis
May 31, 2011, 04:38 PM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

Which gives a fantastic message to everyone else with the same idea.

Andronicus
May 31, 2011, 04:40 PM
Thanks for posting this arn. Engadget and thisismynext, are both lagging behind you on this story.

Warbrain
May 31, 2011, 04:41 PM
Agreed, Lodsys is approaching this in an extremely scummy way that Apple cannot afford to let pass because it would encourage copy cats (i.e. want a pay out, sue iOS developers and Apple will buy you).
Apple needs to do something more than a stern letter or else the progress made on the platform is dead.

rjlawrencejr
May 31, 2011, 04:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

Outside of the fact that Lodsys and Apple are each plaintiffs in patent infringement suits, I fail to see how the two cases are even remotely similar.

Lodsys must not be too confident it has an airtight case since $1000 will get you very little in terms of legal representation. Especially if you hire an attorney well-versed in patent law. It's fairly obvious Lodsys is gambling on renegotiating the terms of licensing agreement. It's very likely they underestimated either popularity of the App Store as a whole or that customers would actually upgrade from free apps to paid ones.

mentholiptus
May 31, 2011, 04:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; 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)

I hope these arrogant ****s get beat down.

0815
May 31, 2011, 04:42 PM
The big question is how (if?) Apple will protect its developers. A legal conflict between Apple and Lodsys doesn't protect the developer. I imagine this will be a lively topic of conversation at WWDC. :)

I guess the most straight forward thing would be that they give the developers full access to the lawyers of Apple. I don't know if that is possible, but can Apple lawyers file some sort of motion to put the cases filed by Lodsys on hold until a (court) decision is made what the license agreement between Apple and Lodsys covers?

invalidname
May 31, 2011, 04:43 PM
Finally, Lodsys has announced (http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/-responsibility-and-accountability-lodsys-usd1000-offer.html) that will reimburse any developer improperly targeted by an infringement notice $1,000 for their troubles, suggesting that firm is confident in its standing and convinced that it will prevail.


Some confidence. $1,000 would cover, what, an hour or two of attorney's fees? Give me a frickin' break. This is pure PR and doesn't merit serious consideration.

Warbrain
May 31, 2011, 04:44 PM
I guess the most straight forward thing would be that they give the developers full access to the lawyers of Apple. I don't know if that is possible, but can Apple lawyers file some sort of motion to put the cases filed by Lodsys on hold until a (court) decision is made what the license agreement between Apple and Lodsys covers?

I'm willing to bet that there will be a decent presence of Apple Legal at WWDC just because of this.

atzeX
May 31, 2011, 04:45 PM
Just some info on the process inside an app:

- App asks Apples servers for available products
- App shows products to user
- User chooses product
- App tells Apple's framework inside of app that the user would like to buy product X
- Apple's framework COMPLETELY takes over to ask customer if he wants to buy product X. The app has NO control of this! Only Apple's framework is at work here.
- If user accepts, framework tells App that user did accept and App can unlock bought feature.

The whole process of buying is though Apple's code and servers. The App (and its developer) itself has NO way to interact with the customer.
The App is just told that anyone bought some product. Nothing more.

NAG
May 31, 2011, 04:45 PM
Apple needs to do something more than a stern letter or else the progress made on the platform is dead.

I'm sure they have a plan. This isn't the silly Apple that basically gave Microsoft the mac UI. Hopefully, that progress includes a way to help iOS developers because we could lose a lot of good iOS developers from this.

Warbrain
May 31, 2011, 04:46 PM
I'm sure they have a plan. This isn't the silly Apple that basically gave Microsoft the mac UI. Hopefully, that progress includes a way to help iOS developers because we could lose a lot of good iOS developers from this.

I'm hoping they already have a plan and won't let this sit like they did with the letter they already sent. Now that the bomb has been dropped...

juicedropsdeuce
May 31, 2011, 04:48 PM
Finally someone is willing to stand up to Apple's bullying.

I hope Lodsys prevails, for the sake of free market capitalism.

Frobozz
May 31, 2011, 04:48 PM
Finally, Lodsys has announced (http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/-responsibility-and-accountability-lodsys-usd1000-offer.html) that will reimburse any developer improperly targeted by an infringement notice $1,000 for their troubles, suggesting that firm is confident in its standing and convinced that it will prevail.

LOL!!!! They do, and you won't.

The Lodsys patent trolls are about to be slayed by Apple's +5 Bastard Sword of Flame. This should prevent their regeneration. ;-)

mentholiptus
May 31, 2011, 04:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; 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)

Finally someone is willing to stand up to Apple's bullying.

I hope Lodsys prevails, for the sake of free market capitalism.

Nice try.

juicedropsdeuce
May 31, 2011, 04:50 PM
...are about to be slayed by Apple's +5 Bastard Sword of Flame. This should prevent their regeneration. ;-)

What?

farmboy
May 31, 2011, 04:50 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

Do you really believe that all patent infringement positions and related lawsuits are of equal merit, and that it's an "all or none" premise?

Warbrain
May 31, 2011, 04:50 PM
Finally someone is willing to stand up to Apple's bullying.

I hope Lodsys prevails, for the sake of free market capitalism.
Seriously? Lodsys is using their patents in a manner that will kill the market.

NAG
May 31, 2011, 04:50 PM
I'm hoping they already have a plan and won't let this sit like they did with the letter they already sent. Now that the bomb has been dropped...

Frankly, I hope Apple reaches out to developers before WWDC. We'll see how on the ball Apple is about this. I'm willing to bet they're pretty on the ball now that they had the initial 10 day response turn around/I doubt they assumed Lodsys would just go away.

Warbrain
May 31, 2011, 04:52 PM
Frankly, I hope Apple reaches out to developers before WWDC. We'll see how on the ball Apple is about this. I'm willing to bet they're pretty on the ball now that they had the initial 10 day response turn around/I doubt they assumed Lodsys would just go away.

The two weeks of no word from Apple before the letter likely was spent drafting the letter and organizing plans for whatever options Lodsys had. Now they just need to open the envelope.

pyramid6
May 31, 2011, 04:57 PM
IANAL, but the judge is going to be pissed that they didn't give the developers enough time to negotiate, ie Lodsys jumped the gun. And Apple is joined in the law suite. Apple has publicly said that the developers are covered. That makes Apple involved. The problem, and Lodsys knows this, the developers will need to hire a lawyer to file the motions, to get it dismissed so they can negotiate, or file to have Apple representatives clarify how the developers are protected. I'm guessing they are suing now before the developers get a chance to talk with Apple at WWDC. It's a shake down, and it only works if the victim is scared.

bozzykid
May 31, 2011, 04:57 PM
It is in Apple's best interest to fight this all the way, with every resource they can bring to bear. If they don't pay now and crush Lodsys decisively -- hopefully with a very clear legal precedent set to dissuade future patent trolls -- they'll be paying a lot more to a lot more patent holders in the future.

The problem is Apple is already validating some of their patents by licensing them from Lodsys. The most Apple can do is claim the patents are already licensed by Apple and thus don't need to be licensed by app developers.

kycophpd
May 31, 2011, 04:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; 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)

I think Lodsys must not have a very good relationship with their own lawyers. No lawyer is going to advise them to offer $1,000 if they are wrong.

That's crazy!

Bilbo63
May 31, 2011, 05:01 PM
Some confidence. $1,000 would cover, what, an hour or two of attorney's fees? Give me a frickin' break. This is pure PR and doesn't merit serious consideration.

That was my first thought... Not sure how this will pan out though.

camnchar
May 31, 2011, 05:04 PM
Finally someone is willing to stand up to Apple's bullying.

I hope Lodsys prevails, for the sake of free market capitalism.

Speaking of trolls ...

Krevnik
May 31, 2011, 05:04 PM
Lodsys must not be too confident it has an airtight case since $1000 will get you very little in terms of legal representation. Especially if you hire an attorney well-versed in patent law. It's fairly obvious Lodsys is gambling on renegotiating the terms of licensing agreement. It's very likely they underestimated either popularity of the App Store as a whole or that customers would actually upgrade from free apps to paid ones.

Lodsys wasn't even involved in the original licensing agreement. The timeline is more:

- Apple licenses patent pool from company A.
- Lodsys buys company A's patents.
- Lodsys doesn't get any money from Apple's license and is trying to monetize the patents they bought.

rorschach
May 31, 2011, 05:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

All lawsuits are equal? One lawsuit can't be justified while another is not?

NAG
May 31, 2011, 05:07 PM
That was my first thought... Not sure how this will pan out though.

My first thought (back when this all first started) was, "why does a patent troll have a PR department that cares what normal people think?"

Seriously, why is Lodsys spending so much time and money explaining themselves with cheap PR tricks? It comes across even more scummy than if they had no public statements at all. How stupid does Lodsys think we are that we'll think $1000 will pay for a lawyer (one that any smart developer got the instant Lodsys threatened them)? If Lodsys knows where to get good Lawyers that will work for $1000 for a few weeks of work, wow.

OllyW
May 31, 2011, 05:10 PM
The big question is how (if?) Apple will protect its developers. A legal conflict between Apple and Lodsys doesn't protect the developer. I imagine this will be a lively topic of conversation at WWDC. :)

It would be good if Apple paid for a team of their top lawyers to represent the developers in court and rip these frivolous lawsuits to pieces.

miografico
May 31, 2011, 05:10 PM
This is all about wanting to get their entire portfolio bought outright.
Do the math on their proposed licensing fees and put it in the App Market context.

It would be absolutely impossible for them even know if you have a profitable App. Apple would never allow them to have access to your gross sales figures.

Just because you have an app with In App upgrade doesn't mean you are making any real money. They would be relying on one or two man shops to be truthful to them, and even if that were the case bring in absolute chump change from their asking percentage.

They want their patents bought outright and this is their weasel way of doing it. It seems to me they are going after the highest bidder approach i.e. Apple or Google by targeting the weakest link(s) in both systems, 3rd party developers.

The problem then becomes do we really want Apple or Google owning these bogus patents either?

This is one guy with two or three lawyers and an LLC betting the whole farm on this as his payday.

If he wins he is persona non grata in the tech world, and no one will ever do business with him again, but be extremely wealthy and will not care.

If he loses he is persona non grata in the tech world, no one will ever do business with him again and he will be bankrupt.

Krevnik
May 31, 2011, 05:11 PM
The problem is Apple is already validating some of their patents by licensing them from Lodsys. The most Apple can do is claim the patents are already licensed by Apple and thus don't need to be licensed by app developers.

That isn't quite how it works. A patent can be ruled invalid no matter what happened in the past between the two parties. If the patent is invalid, it is invalid, "validated" by the market or not. Especially in the case of licenses covering a pool of patents.

Also, keep in mind Lodsys is a new player here. The license wasn't between Apple and Lodsys, but Apple and the original patent owners. Lodsys at this point is just inheriting the license, and obviously doesn't seem to think it means what the previous owners think it means. My guess is that they want to monetize their patents to get return on their investment.

admanimal
May 31, 2011, 05:12 PM
My first thought (back when this all first started) was, "why does a patent troll have a PR department that cares what normal people think?"

Seriously, why is Lodsys spending so much time and money explaining themselves with cheap PR tricks? It comes across even more scummy than if they had no public statements at all. How stupid does Lodsys think we are that we'll think $1000 will pay for a lawyer (one that any smart developer got the instant Lodsys threatened them)? If Lodsys knows where to get good Lawyers that will work for $1000 for a few weeks of work, wow.

It seems pretty likely that Lodsys' goal all along was to bait Apple into getting involved and hopefully force them into some more expensive license.

MagnusVonMagnum
May 31, 2011, 05:15 PM
A thousand dollars is nothing when you need to hire lawyers.

You don't hire lawyers. You pay Lodsys for their valid patent and if Apple prevails, you get your money back + $1000. Why fight something if Apple is going to fight it for you? I'd be protecting my butt from fines first and worrying about the outcome later.

I do find it strange that Lodsys has only filed claims against 7 developers. I mean what is that? Target only those developers you think you can a lot of money/sales out of? Certainly there must be more than 7 people using the demo/upgrade system? It seems to me if they sue one on those grounds, they should have to sue them all or there's some kind of discrimination going on. Why should one developer get off scott free while another is sued? The whole thing reeks of easy money, but like I've said before, I'm 100% against ALL "software patents". I think they should fall only under copyright law. Patents should be reserved for physical inventions, not abstract ideas and GUI layouts.

Warbrain
May 31, 2011, 05:16 PM
You don't hire lawyers. You pay Lodsys for their valid patent and if Apple prevails, you get your money back + $1000. Why fight something if Apple is going to fight it for you? I'd be protecting my butt from fines first and worrying about the outcome later.

I do find it strange that Lodsys has only filed claims against 7 developers. I mean what is that? Target only those developers you think you can a lot of money/sales out of? Certainly there must be more than 7 people using the demo/upgrade system? It seems to me if they sue one on those grounds, they should have to sue them all or there's some kind of discrimination going on. Why should one developer get off scott free while another is sued? The whole thing reeks of easy money, but like I've said before, I'm 100% against ALL "software patents". I think they should fall only under copyright law. Patents should be reserved for physical inventions, not abstract ideas and GUI layouts.

Test cases? Maybe these are the ones that they feel can influence the rest of the developers.

shartypants
May 31, 2011, 05:16 PM
There is no way Apple will allow its developers to have to pay a licensing fee, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I haven't been served by Lodsys, but I still want my $1000 for the stress of wondering if I will be served! :)

theinsider
May 31, 2011, 05:17 PM
***Abstract from patent***

In an exemplary system, information is received at a central location from different units of a commodity. The information is generated from two-way local interactions between users of the different units of the commodity and a user interface in the different units of the commodity. The interactions elicit from respective users their perceptions of the commodity.

***End Abstract***

So this is the abstract from the patent that Lodsys is claiming that developers have breached. From this abstract we can gather that the premise of the patent is that it covers interactions between a "unit of a commodity" (ie. iPhone App) and users with respect to gathering the users "perceptions of the commodity".

I think we can all agree that given this abstract, going after developers for in app purchases has nothing to do with gathering "perceptions of the commodity". More so the only grounds that Lodsys would have for suing using this patent, taking the abstract at face value, is for the feedback via the iTunes Store, which is owned by Apple, whom is licensed.

NAG
May 31, 2011, 05:18 PM
It seems pretty likely that Lodsys' goal all along was to bait Apple into getting involved and hopefully force them into some more expensive license.

I agree that Lodsys wasn't trying to make money from the developers. They're hostages. What I don't understand is why Lodsys is trying to make it look like they aren't taking hostages with such weak PR maneuvers as saying they'll give the developers $1000. Apple isn't the type of company to bow to popular pressure even if Lodsys somehow tricked everyone into believing they weren't patent trolls. It just makes no sense why Lodsys is pretending to care what the customers of iOS devices think. Lodsys isn't selling anything to us, they're selling to Apple.

Dcuellar
May 31, 2011, 05:19 PM
The timing is impeccable. One week before the Developer's Conference...

henrystar
May 31, 2011, 05:21 PM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

Maybe that is what they are angling for. Offer $1.98, Apple!

Cougarcat
May 31, 2011, 05:21 PM
Y
I do find it strange that Lodsys has only filed claims against 7 developers. I mean what is that? Target only those developers you think you can a lot of money/sales out of? Certainly there must be more than 7 people using the demo/upgrade system? It seems to me if they sue one on those grounds, they should have to sue them all or there's some kind of discrimination going on. Why should one developer get off scott free while another is sued? The whole thing reeks of easy money, but like I've said before, I'm 100% against ALL "software patents". I think they should fall only under copyright law. Patents should be reserved for physical inventions, not abstract ideas and GUI layouts.

Everything you said, but especially what I bolded.

What's bizarre is that the only significant developer is Iconfactory for Twitterific. I doubt Lodsys will get anything significant out of "Shadow Era." How did they pick these 7?

Glideslope
May 31, 2011, 05:22 PM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

What? Give them what they want???????

They are like a Tick Embedded in Ones Groin. :apple:

0815
May 31, 2011, 05:24 PM
The problem is Apple is already validating some of their patents by licensing them from Lodsys. The most Apple can do is claim the patents are already licensed by Apple and thus don't need to be licensed by app developers.

This is not even about validating the license and not (and as mentioned by others paying for license does not validate it).

This is about Lodsys trying to charge a second time for it - Apple payed already for it for use in their API, the devs are not reimplementing things, they use Apples API which is already licensed.

Glideslope
May 31, 2011, 05:25 PM
LOL!!!! They do, and you won't.

The Lodsys patent trolls are about to be slayed by Apple's +5 Bastard Sword of Flame. This should prevent their regeneration. ;-)

Dam, that is good. ;)

d0minick
May 31, 2011, 05:27 PM
I am very surprised by the replies in the forum.

When Apple targets people for copyright and trademark infringements, they are supported in droves; as they should be.

But a company feels that their contract is violated and they are being assaulted by comments here.

If they company is right, I hope they take Apple to the bank, and vice versa.

I think this company maybe be right, or they have an exceptional poker face.

mmcxiiad
May 31, 2011, 05:27 PM
It seems pretty likely that Lodsys' goal all along was to bait Apple into getting involved and hopefully force them into some more expensive license.

As far as I understand Corporate Law, the first rule is to multiply the estimated time your legal team will work on an issue and offer a percentage of that to the other side as "go away and leave us alone" money. I bet Lodsys is banking on this.

The problem with this though is if Apple does this, it opens the door for every 2-bit IP shark to come out of the woodwork to get a payday.

Apple is either going to go for the one time payment and make them disappear (maybe even buying out the IP) or they are going to destroy them.

The decision Apple's legal team will make is - is it cheaper to pay them off and risk other people coming at us OR do we show every IP holding firm that we aren't going to be pushed around (nor will we let you push around the developers.

That said, if I had half of Apple's money in the bank, I would have the absolute best legal team money could buy. If that team got together and wrote the letter that Apple released, it isn't because they are ready to roll over. If they were just going to pay Lodsys to disappear, it would have happened already. No, they are looking for a good old fashion beat down.

Jeaz
May 31, 2011, 05:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

While I'm not a fan of either lawsuits, have you seen the Samsung products? They are in some parts out-right copies. That's the difference here. Apple has actually done something rather than just file a vague patent 20 years ago and now claim for it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the US patent system is really utterly broken and I'm amazed that it hasn't crippled the businesses more than it already have.

SoGood
May 31, 2011, 05:30 PM
Where's the actual patent, claims and contract wording b/n AAPL and Lodsys?

But $1000 for wrongful lawsuit? Lodsys has got to be joking! Clearly Lodsys understands the relationship b/n AAPL and its iOS developers and knows the big money is in AAPL's hands, and is aiming get a significant share of that. A real weasel!

NAG
May 31, 2011, 05:31 PM
Everything you said, but especially what I bolded.

What's bizarre is that the only significant developer is Iconfactory for Twitterific. I doubt Lodsys will get anything significant out of "Shadow Era." How did they pick these 7?

Indeed, if those are the only people they're going after at the moment then I'm wondering if they're trying to get a bunch of easy developers to fold to weaken Apple's position (and they just threw in Iconfactory to try to hide what they're doing). You'd think they would go after juicier targets if they really cared about getting money out of the developers.

It's blatantly obvious they're trying to double dip on the patents and are acting like children trying to get it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the US patent system is really utterly broken and I'm amazed that it hasn't crippled the businesses more than it already have.

What we got is a cold war with a tiny country called Lodsys getting their hands on a broken arrow and trying to extort money for it.

gnasher729
May 31, 2011, 05:32 PM
The problem is Apple is already validating some of their patents by licensing them from Lodsys. The most Apple can do is claim the patents are already licensed by Apple and thus don't need to be licensed by app developers.

That is utter nonsense. Licensing a patent _usually_ doesn't mean you think its valid, it means licensing it is cheaper than going to court, even when you win the court case. But in this case, Apple licensed a bunch of patents en masse, which were then sold to Lodsys. So Apple may never even have looked at this patent, it just came together with a bunch of others.

However, what Apple _does_ claim is something totally different from what you say. Apple says that it is the Apple iDevices, the Apple software on these iDevices, and the Apple App Store that implement what Lodsys claim is an invention patented by them. The developers have nothing to do with it; they don't implement the invention, so they don't owe Lodsys a penny, whether Apple has a license or not. If there is anyone that can be sued, it is the one who implements the patent, and that is Apple. But Apple has a license.

After the open letter that Apple sent to Lodsys explaining the situation to them, any developer being sued might very well claim that this is a frivolous lawsuit (because Lodsys _must_ know they are in the wrong) in which case that developer should be rewarded the cost of their lawyers as well, and that could be very expensive for Lodsys.


As far as I understand Corporate Law, the first rule is to multiply the estimated time your legal team will work on an issue and offer a percentage of that to the other side as "go away and leave us alone" money. I bet Lodsys is banking on this.

The story that goes around about IBM is this: If anyone asks them for money and threatens a lawsuit, if the amount is > $25,000, IBM _will_ pound them into the ground as hard as they can. If the amount is less than $25,000, they throw a coin and either pound them into the ground as hard as they can, or send them a letter "sue us and we will pound you into the ground as hard as we can". Sometimes it costs money (like IBM vs. SCO, which cost IBM many millions while SCO went bankrupt), but overall it is good for business.

haravikk
May 31, 2011, 05:33 PM
This is disgraceful; it's easily one of the stupidest patents I've seen (how the hell do these kinds of patents keep getting granted?!), Apple has clear negotiated a license in order to cover their developers so they can integrate the feature as painlessly as possible instead of fighting the stupid patent, and now Lodsys turn around and start filing lawsuits anyway?

Lodsys needs to be destroyed. Hell, the whole bloody patent process needs to be scrapped and re-written with all current patents voided, as it's obvious that 99% of technology patents are just people describing things in the vaguest terms possible in the hopes of suing people that use a technology that might match.

coolspot18
May 31, 2011, 05:33 PM
Only a $1,000 for misfiling a suit? Sheesh - they should have stepped upto the plate and offered each developer 10,000 - 20,000 each - that's probably how much it'll cost the developers to defend themselves and then some.

webspinner
May 31, 2011, 05:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Well, I've been in Italy this whole time and I have a reasonably prominent iPad app with an upgrade button. Cant wait to see if I have a two week old FedEX slip on my door when I get home tomorrow. Apple needs to smash these guys. I didnt work my butt of for the past year and a half to make an awesome app that provides a good income for my wife and I just to have it all taken away in legal fees to fight some slimeball troll.

NAG
May 31, 2011, 05:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Well, I've been in Italy this whole time and I have a reasonably prominent iPad app with an upgrade button. Cant wait to see if I have a two week old FedEX slip on my door when i get home tomorrow. Apple needs to smash these guys. I didnt work my butt of for the past year and a half to make an awesome app that provides a good income for my wife and I just to have it all taken away from in legal fees to fight some slimeball troll.

I hope Apple helps you out if you do get targeted. It is despicable how Lodsys is going about this.

Stridder44
May 31, 2011, 05:38 PM
They are fighting against a huge company with many billions in the bank. I hope they know what they're getting themselves into.

Prepare the ass-kickings.

Blu Reel
May 31, 2011, 05:40 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but...

1) Isn't a patent a limited timeframe protection to help companies develop products and bring them to market and recoup their R&D?

2) Didn't our government institute patent law to encourage innovation and therefore growth economically?

3) With the zillions of patents, trademarks and copyrights filed, how is a programmer/wannabe businessman supposed to be able to innovate, bring to market, and make a living without being sued into shutdown by said holders of the leeching-, trolling-, fill-in-your-own-description-, kind?

If so, why does a company like Lodsys exist at all?

and since Lodsys is not actively developing anything based on the patent it is suing about, isn't that discouraging innovation - the opposite of the intent of patent law?

I applaud Apple for opening up the market again for individual programmers and smaller groups. It has caused me to think about programming again for a living, but what Lodsys is doing makes me think that it's not worth it.

If this were a votable situation, my vote is for:
1) a DOJ sponsored court order for a cease and desist on Lodsys for practices that are anti-competitive, anti-innovative, detrimental to small businesses, and detrimental to the US economy
2) a FTC (or whichever entity is in charge of this) re-evaluation and subsequent enforcement of the formation of companies like Lodsys who's sole purpose/primary source of income is to make money off of licensing patents to declare these companies invalid and dissolve the companies for the betterment of all businesses.

...and thus concludes my venting for this topic.

Krevnik
May 31, 2011, 05:41 PM
I am very surprised by the replies in the forum.

When Apple targets people for copyright and trademark infringements, they are supported in droves; as they should be.

But a company feels that their contract is violated and they are being assaulted by comments here.

If they company is right, I hope they take Apple to the bank, and vice versa.

I think this company maybe be right, or they have an exceptional poker face.

If this lawsuit is really over an API developers are using, then Apple can and SHOULD be defending their devs in court. Hell, the health of the platform demands that they do, even if Lodsys is right. There is simply no way a platform can remain healthy if you can get sued for using an API by some random 3rd party. So people rooting for Apple in this case are doing so because their victory is good for the health of the platform. A lot of the concern I see is more about developers getting caught in the middle, which is a valid concern, and hoping Apple will step out and protect them is a valid hope since it is Apple's API causing the problem..

The Apple/Samsung flap is somewhat different. Apple may be overstepping their bounds there, but with the similarities between the iPhone and the Samsung devices in the lawsuit... there's enough there to at least let a judge decide. And here's the thing, with Samsung and Apple, there is/was likely negotiation behind closed doors that we don't hear about.

Lodsys on the other hand seems to be fairly vocal and not been actually negotiating with anyone, just making demands in the hope they will get what they want. Not a very good corporate citizen if true.

Lone Deranger
May 31, 2011, 05:44 PM
Lodsys is the new Psystar it seems.

Krevnik
May 31, 2011, 05:46 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but...

1) Isn't a patent a limited timeframe protection to help companies develop products and bring them to market and recoup their R&D?

2) Didn't our government institute patent law to encourage innovation and therefore growth economically?

3) With the zillions of patents, trademarks and copyrights filed, how is a programmer/wannabe businessman supposed to be able to innovate, bring to market, and make a living without being sued into shutdown by said holders of the leeching-, trolling-, fill-in-your-own-description-, kind?

If so, why does a company like Lodsys exist at all?

and since Lodsys is not actively developing anything based on the patent it is suing about, isn't that discouraging innovation - the opposite of the intent of patent law?

I applaud Apple for opening up the market again for individual programmers and smaller groups. It has caused me to think about programming again for a living, but what Lodsys is doing makes me think that it's not worth it.

If this were a votable situation, my vote is for:
1) a DOJ sponsored court order for a cease and desist on Lodsys for practices that are anti-competitive, anti-innovative, detrimental to small businesses, and detrimental to the US economy
2) a FTC (or whichever entity is in charge of this) re-evaluation and subsequent enforcement of the formation of companies like Lodsys who's sole purpose/primary source of income is to make money off of licensing patents to declare these companies invalid and dissolve the companies for the betterment of all businesses.

...and thus concludes my venting for this topic.

This is true, although it isn't quite as easy as preventing these companies from existing. There are also valid companies where their goal is to help the small guy get their patent searched, filed, and find a suitable company who can fully develop the idea. In this case, the company helping the little guy is doing the same thing (making money off licensing/buying/selling patents), but with potentially more responsibility. Do we want to disrupt that part of the market as well?

Unfortunately, the timescales of patents today doesn't quite keep up with the scale of development, which means patents can cause trouble quite a ways down the road more than they did in say, 1880. That's one reason why companies like Lodsys can exist. I'd say if you want to attack this sort of patent troll, you want to shorten the length of patents and erode their ability to profit off the older, cheaper patents.

NAG
May 31, 2011, 05:51 PM
Lodsys is the new Psystar it seems.

Psystar was a joke that mildly threatened Apple's bottom line. Lodsys could actually hurt someone enough to put them out of business (small developers).

kiljoy616
May 31, 2011, 05:54 PM
And now for a great chuckle after reading this part :rolleyes:

"Finally, Lodsys has announced that it will reimburse any developer improperly targeted by an infringement notice $1,000 for their troubles,"

$1000 muhahahaha, oh my like that real money any more :mad:

That would just be the retaining fee for an attorney for the first week.

Blu Reel
May 31, 2011, 05:55 PM
This is true, although it isn't quite as easy as preventing these companies from existing. There are also valid companies where their goal is to help the small guy get their patent searched, filed, and find a suitable company who can fully develop the idea. In this case, the company helping the little guy is doing the same thing (making money off licensing/buying/selling patents), but with potentially more responsibility. Do we want to disrupt that part of the market as well?

Unfortunately, the timescales of patents today doesn't quite keep up with the scale of development, which means patents can cause trouble quite a ways down the road more than they did in say, 1880. That's one reason why companies like Lodsys can exist. I'd say if you want to attack this sort of patent troll, you want to shorten the length of patents and erode their ability to profit off the older, cheaper patents.

I don't imagine this to be an easy fix at all. I am just trying to simplify what I would like to see happen as an end result if the overall patent problems are ever addressed and dealt with.

Thank you for your added insight, though :)

kiljoy616
May 31, 2011, 05:58 PM
Apple Ninja Lawyers deployed in 3....2...1...

Ninja please this is full Shock and Awe. :D

And forget about the Patent system been fix, I predict this is going to get even worse in the coming years, ah humans so simple to understand.

Vertigo50
May 31, 2011, 05:59 PM
The smart thing for Lodsys would have been to back down while they still had the chance. Steve is going to take this personally, and they will be obliterated.

bmustaf
May 31, 2011, 06:06 PM
Feels a lot more like posturing than a real, legitimate offer that is "putting their money where their mouth is".

If they lose, what recourse do individual devs have to collect on that $1000? I'd love to see the paperwork that promises this $1000 and in the case Lodsys loses, the devs' $1000/each is about the *last* thing payable if Lodsys becomes financially insolvent (read: attorneys and preffered shareholders will end up with some percentage of funds owed them long before any devs ever get the chance to see a cent).

It's a zero-risk bargain for them to make this offer that makes them look like they're serious or they have a serious claim. Perhaps they do, but really, this just smells like a stunt.

Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/lodsys-responds-to-apple-files-lawsuits-against-app-developers/)


Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/05/lodsys_lawsuits_png.png)


Patent holding firm Lodsys today published a series of blog posts revealing that the company has filed suit (http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/why-did-lodsys-sue-some-app-developers-on-may-31-2011.html) against App Store developers, accelerating its efforts to extract licensing fees (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/13/lodsys-threatens-to-sue-app-store-developers-over-purchase-links/) from developers for using in app purchases and upgrade links in their App Store applications. Lodsys had given developers 21 days to negotiate a license before filing suit, but the firm appears to have initiated lawsuits early in order to thwart Apple's efforts (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/23/apple-backs-developers-against-lodsys-patent-threats-says-devs-undisputedly-licensed/) to back the developers.Lodsys has also disputed (http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/apples-license-claim-disputed1.html) Apple's assertion that developers are "undeniably licensed" for the technology by virtue of an existing licensing arrangement between Apple and Lodsys.Simultaneous to the blog posting, Lodsys says that is has sent a detailed legal response to Apple, which it has invited the company to publish in its entirety.

Finally, Lodsys has announced (http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/-responsibility-and-accountability-lodsys-usd1000-offer.html) that will reimburse any developer improperly targeted by an infringement notice $1,000 for their troubles, suggesting that firm is confident in its standing and convinced that it will prevail.

Article Link: Lodsys Responds to Apple, Files Lawsuits Against App Developers (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/lodsys-responds-to-apple-files-lawsuits-against-app-developers/)

Analog Kid
May 31, 2011, 06:10 PM
$1000 doesn't show confidence, it actually shows quite the opposite.

"We'll reimburse you $100,000 for your troubles" shows you're the gambling type. "We'll reimburse you $1 million" shows confidence.

Anything less than that is just for show, but low enough that they don't risk fighting lawyers willing to work on contingency...

oracle_ab
May 31, 2011, 06:11 PM
How can one license tech to another knowing it's going to go into the other's API for others to use, but not place detailed specifications in said license agreement? Poor Lodsys; they're really messed up.

mrdlcastle
May 31, 2011, 06:16 PM
First thing I would suggest to all developers is the following:

DO NOT PAY LODSYS A DIME UNTIL THE VERDICT MANDATES!

This is a tactic to frighten those who don't have access to the Apple Ninja Lawyers to get money off of them.

Best thing to do is to not pay until forced by the court. If they had a case they wouldn't have so quickly changed tactics and kept their focus only on suing Apple. Since they know they will not win, any contract that they write will have a clause in it that will keep it standing no matter what verdict is reached.

Strength in NUMBERS! Stay strong developers! :apple:

[url=http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/lodsys-responds-to-apple-files-lawsuits-against-app-developers/]

ehoui
May 31, 2011, 06:17 PM
$1000 doesn't show confidence, it actually shows quite the opposite.

"We'll reimburse you $100,000 for your troubles" shows you're the gambling type. "We'll reimburse you $1 million" shows confidence.

Anything less than that is just for show, but low enough that they don't risk fighting lawyers willing to work on contingency...

I agree. If they sued 7 developers, then their downside is $7k. This is merely to show they are being "reasonable" and the negative press is unwarranted. Frankly, why do they care if they are a patent troll - that's what is odd. Maybe they are hoping this goes to trial and these actions could sway a jury?

hayesk
May 31, 2011, 06:21 PM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

Two things wrong with that:
1. Lodsys then gets rich from Apple's buyout.
2. All the other patent trolls do just what Lodsys did in hopes of an Apple buyout.

cmaier
May 31, 2011, 06:30 PM
I agree. If they sued 7 developers, then their downside is $7k. This is merely to show they are being "reasonable" and the negative press is unwarranted. Frankly, why do they care if they are a patent troll - that's what is odd. Maybe they are hoping this goes to trial and these actions could sway a jury?

$1000 is about 2 hours worth of patent attorney time. It's nothing.

dejo
May 31, 2011, 06:32 PM
If they had a case they wouldn't have so quickly changed tactics and kept their focus only on suing Apple.
This is the single part of your post I disagree with: Lodsys' focus has never been to sue Apple, especially in an "only" fashion. They have been pretty consistent in going after the App Makers. Why would they sue Apple when Apple is already licensed for this patent?

newagemac
May 31, 2011, 06:33 PM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

Why in the world would anyone prefer to actually reward this kind of behavior with big paychecks?

Wulven
May 31, 2011, 06:46 PM
This is Kyle Poole from Wulven Game Studios. Like hundreds if not thousands of Apps, we use In-App payments for our TCG Shadow Era, which Touch Arcade hailed as "A fantastic representation of what freemium games should be.".

I wanted to thank Lodsys for suing us. You can't buy awesome publicity like this. I await the massive increase in Shadow Era players! :cool:

ciTiger
May 31, 2011, 06:54 PM
Pays 1000 if it turns out they were wrong to sue? they must be very confident...

chrono1081
May 31, 2011, 07:03 PM
Pays 1000 if it turns out they were wrong to sue? they must be very confident...

I think its a front. If they were so confident then why did they push the court dates up?

I don't think Apple is wrong about this, because if they are then Google would be wrong also as Android devs started getting letters. Two technological giants with teams of lawyers most likely know what they are doing more then Lodsys.

Intruder
May 31, 2011, 07:08 PM
Well well...

Here we go again... I though that threatening Apple letter had put them to be quiet in the corner, but it seems they weren't.

Ok, I know some people doesn't like conspiracy theory, but they are something that might be fishy about the whole thing.

According to FOSS Blog today : http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/lodsys-sues-7-app-developers-in-eastern.html

One of the firms of lawyers used for the suing is from Seattle, where the previous owner of the pater are (Intellectual Ventures). And we all know which company have office around there... Maybe Lodsys is just being used as a proxy for another company that want to make trouble to their enemies/competitors.

cmaier
May 31, 2011, 07:15 PM
I think its a front. If they were so confident then why did they push the court dates up?
.

Most likely they were worried about Apple filing a declaratory judgment in a friendly district, and taking away the venue decision for their lawsuit.

MattInOz
May 31, 2011, 07:21 PM
Lodsys is the new Psystar it seems.

If you look at the language use they seem all to similar.

Porco
May 31, 2011, 07:24 PM
Am I the only one who can't stop thinking of a certain lyric from Bill Bailey's classic: Beautiful Ladies (In Honour Of Chris De Burgh)?

Gemütlichkeit
May 31, 2011, 07:26 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

Amazing comparison bud.

waldobushman
May 31, 2011, 07:26 PM
Apple will file for TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) to prevent Lodsys from issuing other lawsuits. Likely will do so to establish a legal forum and consolidate the cases.

Comments that Jobs will take this personally -- hope not. Apple has been all business when going after companies like Lodsys.

$1000 offer? Lodsys likely doesn't have the cash to pay off, so worthless offer.

NAG
May 31, 2011, 07:27 PM
One of the firms of lawyers used for the suing is from Seattle, where the previous owner of the pater are (Intellectual Ventures). And we all know which company have office around there... Maybe Lodsys is just being used as a proxy for another company that want to make trouble to their enemies/competitors.

You implying this has something to do with another Seattle area tech company that has been known to fund such proxy legal battles before? I'm skeptical that they'd play that trick again because if they are found out (and they would be just like before) they would seriously piss off developers. It seems way too risky for any of the main players to be doing this. Like juggling hand grenades.

intlplby
May 31, 2011, 07:27 PM
Honestly, I'm surprised that everyone is focused on the players in this drama (Apple, Lodsys and the third-party developers) than on the bigger issue of raising awareness for patent reform.

This is an **ideal** case for arguing against software patents. Everyone involved and impacted by this should be raising this issue with their congressman or women.

This is easily the best case I recall ever seeing that can be useful to argue against patents.

Almost always patent cases are A vs B. A/B cases are not good for illustrating that patents stifle innovation. Rarely do we see a case where it is A vs B-to-Z. This cases really illustrates the innovation-stifling nature of software patents and everyone involved should be raising hell over it.

Discoverer
May 31, 2011, 07:28 PM
Lodsys can do whatever they want with their patents. Developers have a choice of paying the fees or leaving the platform. However, as Steve Jobs said, "Choice is good, isn't it?". Everything will be okay.

runningman1228
May 31, 2011, 07:30 PM
Why doesn't Apple just buy Lodsys, fire all its employees for being such a pain, and end the darn thing.

Hirth
May 31, 2011, 07:37 PM
Lodsys can do whatever they want with their patents. Developers have a choice of paying the fees or leaving the platform. However, as Steve Jobs said, "Choice is good, isn't it?". Everything will be okay.

Except for the fact that what Lodsys is doing is completely immoral. They may have the legal right to do what they are doing, but do not have a moral right to do so. There are plenty of things that are (or have been) legal that are not moral. This is just another example. The law will need to be changed to reflect this as it has been in the past.

ksgant
May 31, 2011, 07:37 PM
They're insane to do this NOW. Just a week before the WWDC...where developers are at the conference. With Apple. Talking together. Planning. No paper trail. Just regular talking.

nooaah
May 31, 2011, 07:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?
I know it's been said already but this post makes less sense than the Cubs winning the next five World Series.

dejo
May 31, 2011, 07:41 PM
One of the firms of lawyers used for the suing is from Seattle, where the previous owner of the pater are (Intellectual Ventures). And we all know which company have office around there...

Um, Amazon? ;)

Discoverer
May 31, 2011, 07:42 PM
Except for the fact that what Lodsys is doing is completely immoral. They may have the legal right to do what they are doing, but do not have a moral right to do so. There are plenty of things that are (or have been) legal that are not moral. This is just another example. The law will need to be changed to reflect this as it has been in the past.

I see. So before Lodsys attempts to make a profit on the patent that they own, they must first consult a priest to see if such act is, "God forbid", immoral?

caspersoong
May 31, 2011, 07:43 PM
Lodsys is really crazy. Hope Google doesn't get off the hook.

cmaier
May 31, 2011, 07:49 PM
Apple will file for TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) to prevent Lodsys from issuing other lawsuits. Likely will do so to establish a legal forum and consolidate the cases.

No they won't. That's not the proper mechanism.

Hirth
May 31, 2011, 08:09 PM
I see. So before Lodsys attempts to make a profit on the patent that they own, they must first consult a priest to see if such act is, "God forbid", immoral?

Do you consider every action that is legal to be moral, i.e. the "right" thing to do? I recognize that some people do and I also think it is their right to do so. I do not. In my view, the law does not define morality, it, at best, reflects it. At worst, the law contradicts morality. In such cases the law is wrong and needs to be changed. That is pretty much how the United States came to be, by recognizing that what England was doing to the colonies was immoral and the citizens who lived here had a moral right to change the status quo. Then it took almost a hundred years and a bloody war to correct another legal immorality. So, while Lodsys is legally entitled to what they are doing, they are not morally correct. This is all my opinion. I accept that you might disagree.

Discoverer
May 31, 2011, 08:15 PM
Do you consider every action that is legal to be moral, i.e. the "right" thing to do? I recognize that some people do and I also think it is their right to do so. I do not. In my view, the law does not define morality, it, at best, reflects it. At worst, the law contradicts morality. In such cases the law is wrong and needs to be changed. That is pretty much how the United States came to be, by recognizing that what England was doing to the colonies was immoral and the citizens who lived here had a moral right to change the status quo. Then it took almost a hundred years and a bloody war to correct another legal immorality. So, while Lodsys is legally entitled to what they are doing, they are not morally correct. This is all my opinion. I accept that you might disagree.

To me, the law is the law. I understand that you do not agree with what Lodsys may be doing, that is your right. However, as you said, they are entitled to do whatever they want. This is why seeing so many people in this forum genuinely wishing them to actually go bankrupt and get thrown out on the street is simply striking to me.

MattInOz
May 31, 2011, 08:19 PM
I see. So before Lodsys attempts to make a profit on the patent that they own, they must first consult a priest to see if such act is, "God forbid", immoral?

Morals aren't just for the Religious....

Common Law has it's own Moral framework that covers if the contract is valid based on the actions, intent and abilities of the parties.

Many of these cases seem to forget that, which is why the question of morality comes up.

kalsta
May 31, 2011, 08:24 PM
I see. So before Lodsys attempts to make a profit on the patent that they own, they must first consult a priest to see if such act is, "God forbid", immoral?

So, capitalism always triumphs over ethics in your mind huh? And morality is a quaint notion reserved for men in funny white garments?

What a world this would be if everyone thought that way. Oh, by the way, did you pay your teeth brushing licensing fees today? What's that? You already paid to buy the toothbrush and toothpaste? Yes I know, but see, the guy who came up with the idea still wants a direct cut.

r00fus
May 31, 2011, 08:39 PM
It really wouldn't help the app developers though since an Apple lawsuit would be separate from any action Lodsys is taking against individual developers. The problem is most of these developers are not big entities and can't afford a legal battle.

Apple could sue Lodsys, then ask the judge for an injunction/hold of Lodsys' other suits as their suit would supersede... if that succeeded, Lodsys would be at Apple's mercy given the suit could take longer than Lodsys has funds.

Using the broken court/patent system for "justice" = priceless.

AidenShaw
May 31, 2011, 08:44 PM
Except for the fact that what Lodsys is doing is completely immoral. They may have the legal right to do what they are doing, but do not have a moral right to do so.

The same argument could be made about Apple's suit against Samsung for the Iphone UI. It's legal, but immoral.

It's a benefit for everyone if people can pick up a random phone and use it. It doesn't matter that Microsoft used a green phone icon in Windows Mobile, and Apple copied it for the Iphone, and now Apple is suing Samsung for using a green phone icon.

The benefit is that all phones have a green icon with a 60's era handset image on it to represent "telephone".

kalsta
May 31, 2011, 09:06 PM
The same argument could be made about Apple's suit against Samsung for the Iphone UI. It's legal, but immoral.

It's a benefit for everyone if people can pick up a random phone and use it. It doesn't matter that Microsoft used a green phone icon in Windows Mobile, and Apple copied it for the Iphone, and now Apple is suing Samsung for using a green phone icon.

The benefit is that all phones have a green icon with a 60's era handset image on it to represent "telephone".

I suspect there's a little more to Apple's lawsuit than the green phone icon. ;) But you're right — we do need to consider the overall benefit to society, as well as the IP owner. To put it another way, as a society we need to keep sight of the spirit of the law. If the letter of the law doesn't match the spirit of the law, then, as Hirth has said, the letter needs to be changed.

WissMAN
May 31, 2011, 09:07 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; 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)

I think Apple has something to loose here. I certainly don't like Lodsys as I can't see anything ethical in their business model.
The patent office has really failed when it comes to technology suits and the spirit of a patent.

objc
May 31, 2011, 09:09 PM
The same argument could be made about Apple's suit against Samsung for the Iphone UI. It's legal, but immoral.
".

this is on a different level. Samsung is a big company and can countersue. Lodsys is purposefully suing small developers because they can't afford the costs to defend themselves. In addition, Lodsys doesn't have any real products, and their patents are completely ridiculous.

The real problem lies in Wash. D.C. Of course that's where most problems originate.

Screwtape
May 31, 2011, 09:22 PM
I can't remember the last time a judge ruled against Apple. Everyone needs to hold tight. Apple will probably countersue and then in 3 years when this finally gets to court, Apple will win like always.

ViviUO
May 31, 2011, 09:24 PM
Mark.Small@lodsys.com

I emailed this thread along with a few others from several forums, as well as a personal message.

Why is this jackoff not being protested?

ilikeimac
May 31, 2011, 09:35 PM
According to the LinkedIn profile (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=2075257) of patent troll Mark Small, he used to be VP of Sales at McAfee, so I think this is his mug.

http://www.eiseverywhere.com/image.php?acc=562&id=11485&width=200

from

http://www.eiseverywhere.com/ereg/popups/speakerdetails.php?eventid=8109&speakerid=6996&

arkmannj
May 31, 2011, 09:46 PM
Any Chance that Apple, Google and some other interested 3rd party could join together to create a joint business entity to buy out Lodsys, or something? Then they would all have access to the pool of patents and be rid of this pest

rmanbike
May 31, 2011, 10:01 PM
The PTO should never let these scum-bag companies have any rights to buy patents they they never intend to use. Patents are their to protect inventors for efforts in developing new ideas and technologies to better of all mankind. They buy patents for one reason and one reason only: to sue everyother inventor. I would pay $1000.00 to any presidential candidate that would end this bull *#*#!

wonderspark
May 31, 2011, 10:10 PM
According to the LinkedIn profile (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=2075257) of patent troll Mark Small, he used to be VP of Sales at McAfee, so I think this is his mug.

Image (http://www.eiseverywhere.com/image.php?acc=562&id=11485&width=200)

from

http://www.eiseverywhere.com/ereg/popups/speakerdetails.php?eventid=8109&speakerid=6996&
Just curious, but by posting his photo and such, are you suggesting people show up at his doorstep with torches alight and pitchforks in hand?

cmaier
May 31, 2011, 10:21 PM
The PTO should never let these scum-bag companies have any rights to buy patents they they never intend to use.

The PTO has no authority over the sale of patents.

Patents are their to protect inventors for efforts in developing new ideas and technologies to better of all mankind.

The inventor was protected, and benefited by selling the patent he was otherwise unable to monetize.


They buy patents for one reason and one reason only: to sue everyother inventor.

They would much prefer to license rather than sue - lawsuits cost a lot of money.


I would pay $1000.00 to any presidential candidate that would end this bull *#*#!

You may want to take a look at the Constitution, specifically the enumerated powers of the President - he or she has no power to make laws to "end this bull *#*#!"

jameskatt
May 31, 2011, 11:55 PM
Troll Lawyers need to be given the death penalty.

As they say in Texas, given a Texan any reason to shoot and he'll do it.

cmaier
May 31, 2011, 11:59 PM
Troll Lawyers need to be given the death penalty.

As they say in Texas, given a Texan any reason to shoot and he'll do it.

LOL. You do know that Texas is by far the most popular location for patent lawsuits because Texas juries tend to find in favor of the patent holders and tend to award large amounts of money.

Eriden
Jun 1, 2011, 12:02 AM
LOL. You do know that Texas is by far the most popular location for patent lawsuits because Texas juries tend to find in favor of the patent holders and tend to award large amounts of money.

Too true! There is a reason so many of the news articles regarding patent litigation say: "Company X filed suit today in Federal Court in the Eastern District of Texas."

gnasher729
Jun 1, 2011, 12:15 AM
Any Chance that Apple, Google and some other interested 3rd party could join together to create a joint business entity to buy out Lodsys, or something? Then they would all have access to the pool of patents and be rid of this pest

Stop it already. That is the best way for the parasites to profit, by finding someone who pays huge amounts of money for the company.


Why in the world would anyone prefer to actually reward this kind of behavior with big paychecks?

I always think it's the children on board who cry "Apple buy this, Apple buy that". Apple should buy anything from Lodsys to Dell and shut it down (I think even Microsoft was mentioned). In reality the effect would be anything from rewarding patent trolls to wasting billions for no good reason at all.


You implying this has something to do with another Seattle area tech company that has been known to fund such proxy legal battles before? I'm skeptical that they'd play that trick again because if they are found out (and they would be just like before) they would seriously piss off developers. It seems way too risky for any of the main players to be doing this. Like juggling hand grenades.

I'll translate that: All these companies have to do is port for applications to the Windows Phone OS, and the lawsuits will go away.

BuddyTronic
Jun 1, 2011, 12:53 AM
Utter bastards.

I'm not a fan of this whole thing at all.


Yeah, but to me it sounds like Lodsys must have something there. They did put their money where their mouth is. To me that means a LOT.

To me it means that they must know they can win whatever they are talking about.

Maybe in the end of it all Apple is going to have to pay some millions of dollars to Lodsys. How and why else would Lodsys make this $1000 offer?

It's crazy and I think Lodsys might be a bit nasty here, but who really knows.

It's very strong to put this $1000.00 thing out there, and I sortof have to respect that. Strangley.

Anyway, I hope real people are not harmed by this legal mumbo jumbo. Apple is going to have to make things right somehow. It's not a big deal I don't think. It will all go away if Apple just pays some ransom to Lodsys and moves on.

That's my take on it for what it's worth.

Except for the fact that what Lodsys is doing is completely immoral. They may have the legal right to do what they are doing, but do not have a moral right to do so. There are plenty of things that are (or have been) legal that are not moral. This is just another example. The law will need to be changed to reflect this as it has been in the past.


I hear ya, but the law has nothing to do with what's right and wrong. It's just what the law is.

It's all speculation until someone really looks at it. They'll figure it out. Maybe some mistake was made in the agreement and someone is going to get paid out as a result.

The good news for developers should be that Apple is going to stand behind them and take care of all the mess one way or another, and that's that.

I'd say there is absolutely zero chance of Apple letting any developers suffer in any way, so if you are a developer, do not worry, don't lose any sleep. One time I had some crap vaguely similar to this and the big company came to rescue me from the sharks, and it felt good to be under their wing.

cmaier
Jun 1, 2011, 12:56 AM
Yeah, but to me it sounds like Lodsys must have something there. They did put their money where their mouth is. To me that means a LOT.

To me it means that they must know they can win whatever they are talking about.

Maybe in the end of it all Apple is going to have to pay some millions of dollars to Lodsys. How and why else would Lodsys make this $1000 offer?

It's crazy and I think Lodsys might be a bit nasty here, but who really knows.

It's very strong to put this $1000.00 thing out there, and I sortof have to respect that. Strangley.

Anyway, I hope real people are not harmed by this legal mumbo jumbo. Apple is going to have to make things right somehow. It's not a big deal I don't think. It will all go away if Apple just pays some ransom to Lodsys and moves on.

That's my take on it for what it's worth.

Even if they have to pay out $1000 to each, that is less than a single day of paying their lawyers. This isn't putting their money where their mouth is - it's simply a rounding error. A first-rate patent litigator can cost $800 for ONE HOUR. The $7000 they are "risking" is nothing to them.

BuddyTronic
Jun 1, 2011, 01:02 AM
The smart thing for Lodsys would have been to back down while they still had the chance. Steve is going to take this personally, and they will be obliterated.


I don't know. I'd like to agree, but the letter of the law rules.

If Lodsys has something, (and the $1000.00 thing makes me think they do), then the mistake is going to be paid for and Lodsys is in for a big payday. You can call them names and stuff, and maybe they deserve it, but rule of law is all that matters - not right and wrong.

What is Lodsys? Can you buy stock in it? I'd be buying today based on the likelyhood they are going to get paid off bigtime.

If they turn out to be wrong, will they be actually paying the $1000.00 to anyone? I guess that's the other thing to consider.

I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

At first I thought they'd be driven back under the rock they came from, but now it seems like their payday might be coming. Get the popcorn.

Even if they have to pay out $1000 to each, that is less than a single day of paying their lawyers. This isn't putting their money where their mouth is - it's simply a rounding error. A first-rate patent litigator can cost $800 for ONE HOUR. The $7000 they are "risking" is nothing to them.


Oh - you mean they are only sueing 7 developers? yeah you have a point then.

I figured this was something that Lodsys could apply to every developer or something. You are right if their obligation if they are wrong is only 7K. haha.

I don't know the full story - just the Gestalt. (pardon my lack of reading on this thing).

All my comments might not count. I was assuming Lodsys had something on thousands of developers, not just a handful of developers. My assessment could be all wrong if Lodsys can only apply their claims to a handful of developers.

I feel a bit dumb now, but whatever, I'm used to that. haha.

MacAddict1978
Jun 1, 2011, 01:09 AM
Lodsys is counting on Apple paying more money to cover developers because they know app devs cannot afford to get hit with every single patent lawsuit that this will surely open the door to.

Nah. Lodsys is a company that buys patents in bulk for cheap some from suckers who sell them. Their business model is to sue people. They don't buy patents that everyone already licenses. They bully you into licensing, sue, and make money either way. Going after these little guys is a crock. I hope Apple is correct in their interpretation because where these scum companies risk loosing money is being wrong in their suits.

We should all mail Lodsys a rotten apple with worms inside.

odedia
Jun 1, 2011, 03:52 AM
yep. MS Apple, and Google should go threw that huge block of patents that license from the company that Lodsys bought up and go after every patent they believe is unenforable or not really a patent and then say NOPE do not need to pay it and reduce the fee by X amount per patent and keep doing that.

Cut of Lodsys from the fees it already is collecting and remove lodsys from pointing back at MS Apple and Google saying LOOK LOOK they licensed them.

They only have 4 patents. They may be a troll, but a very small troll.

dannys1
Jun 1, 2011, 05:06 AM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

You've probably got something there.

I wouldn't be surprised if this whole angle isn't an extreme way of trying to get Apple or Google to buy them outright and thus own the trademark. They'd stand to make a lot more money that way than by selling licenses to independent devs who are struggling to break even.

They'd be looking at a cool few million in the later case...a cool few million for this noise to go away.

Rafterman
Jun 1, 2011, 06:00 AM
"Lodsys had given developers 21 days to negotiate a license before filing suit, but the firm appears to have initiated lawsuits early in order to thwart Apple's efforts to back the developers."

Ah, so now in addition to being bottom-feeding scumbags, they are liars too.

itickings
Jun 1, 2011, 06:15 AM
They'd be looking at a cool few million in the later case...a cool few million for this noise to go away.

And then a cool few million for the next troll, and for each of the hundreds after that one, and so on. If you start paying to make the noise go away, you are bound to get completely deaf very soon.

whooleytoo
Jun 1, 2011, 06:24 AM
screw them, tell all DEVS to remove all in-app purchase's and not use it.

If I understand correctly, developers would still need to pay for having already violated the patent.

kdarling
Jun 1, 2011, 06:31 AM
I wonder how much many of the posters' attitudes would change if THEY were the patent owners:

"Sir, your third cousin, twice removed just died and left you a base patent on click-to-upgrade. Apple and other major companies have already licensed it, so there's no dispute that it's valid."

"Wow! That's an incredible inheritance! But isn't everyone using this invention nowadays?"

"Yes sir, that's why it's worth millions. It's as if you had a patent on multi-touch or something."

"Hmm. Well, I don't want to be called a patent troll, so to heck with my family, let's give it away for free!"

0815
Jun 1, 2011, 06:55 AM
Except for the fact that what Lodsys is doing is completely immoral. They may have the legal right to do what they are doing, but do not have a moral right to do so. There are plenty of things that are (or have been) legal that are not moral. This is just another example. The law will need to be changed to reflect this as it has been in the past.

Has nothing to do with moral (and btw: 99.9% of the businesses that make lots of money don't have a moral, otherwise they would be a charity without making money).

The point here is that Apple already payed a license fee (through bulk license of the complete package). Unfortunately that was licensed before Lodsys owned it so they don't get as much money out of it as they would like to and now they try to find other means to get more money (which is in general ok - as long as the means are fully legal and covered by law)

The one thing that has to be clarified in court is: Does the apple license cover the developers using Apples API or not. My guess would be yes, since the developers are NOT implementing any of the technology and don't have their own servers - they are just using a product. In general, patent holders can't ask for license fees from USERS of a product since the producer of the product has already payed for that. But of course there are many dirty details and some court has to decide this.

Apple should file suit in some court (outside of Texas) to have that clarified.

cmaier
Jun 1, 2011, 07:09 AM
If I understand correctly, developers would still need to pay for having already violated the patent.

Presumably not very much. A "reasonable royalty" would probably be calculated just on the "infringing" sales (and probably only US sales). And it would likely be very small, since the "infringing" feature isn't worth much to the developers (after all - they removed it! And sales presumably would be unaffected by removal).

chrono1081
Jun 1, 2011, 07:30 AM
Most likely they were worried about Apple filing a declaratory judgment in a friendly district, and taking away the venue decision for their lawsuit.

I'm not going to lie, I have no clue what that means :p

KnightWRX
Jun 1, 2011, 07:34 AM
I'm not going to lie, I have no clue what that means :p

Filing for a declaratory judgment is basically filing a "lawsuit against yourself" and asking a judge to submit a judgment before the plaintiff can file their own lawsuit. Doing it in a friendly district means Apple could have won a court case that basically said "The License covers all 3rd party app developers" before Lodsys even had a chance to file a single lawsuit, creating a legal shield preventing them from doing so.

This is all as I understand it of course, not being a lawyer.

MattInOz
Jun 1, 2011, 08:18 AM
Even if they have to pay out $1000 to each, that is less than a single day of paying their lawyers. This isn't putting their money where their mouth is - it's simply a rounding error. A first-rate patent litigator can cost $800 for ONE HOUR. The $7000 they are "risking" is nothing to them.

How much for a decent lawyer to void the contract for formatition under duress?

gorgeousninja
Jun 1, 2011, 08:29 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple (Lodsys) are suing Samsung (developers) over patent infringement.

You cheer for Apple yet want Lodsys dead.

Fanboy much?

Yep, exactly the same situation isn't it?

Apple the patent troll is suing Samsung's app developers.

Nothing whatsoever to do with ripping off a company's products...

You must be so proud to be able to smugly point that out to us all.

fattire357
Jun 1, 2011, 08:38 AM
Admittedly I'm not that well read up on this subject, but if they hold a legal patent and are not receiving royalty payments on it, isn't that unfair?

blahblah100
Jun 1, 2011, 08:44 AM
What I find amazing is all the people on this thread calling Lodsys scum and wanting them dead for "picking on the little guy" yet Apple going after a teenager for selling some white iPhone parts is simply Apple protecting their IP.

Certainly Apple think the patents are valid or they wouldn't have licensed them. Even in Apple's letter, not once was the validity of the patents questioned, it was simply whether the developers fell under the license Apple obtained.

sswanky
Jun 1, 2011, 08:49 AM
I don't imagine this to be an easy fix at all. I am just trying to simplify what I would like to see happen as an end result if the overall patent problems are ever addressed and dealt with.

Thank you for your added insight, though :)

I wouldn't necessarily call what you read insight. Patent trolls use the same argument, "helping the little guy" with enforcing the patentability of their inventions. The reality is, most patent filing service businesses are highly unsuccessful at getting patents granted. They too are sharks preying on the dreams of the little guy. Nearly all who submit their inventions get taken for processing and other fees but patents are never granted. They are strung along with the promise of success and told to be patient because prosecuting takes a long time. Successfully prosecuting a patent is a very expensive and time consuming process, not to mention the expertise needed. That's why these patent filing firms fail to get inventions successfully patented. But they will happily take the little guy's money, whether that guy's invention has a snowball's chance in hell. So, who really cares if that end of the market gets disrupted or not?

chrono1081
Jun 1, 2011, 08:59 AM
Filing for a declaratory judgment is basically filing a "lawsuit against yourself" and asking a judge to submit a judgment before the plaintiff can file their own lawsuit. Doing it in a friendly district means Apple could have won a court case that basically said "The License covers all 3rd party app developers" before Lodsys even had a chance to file a single lawsuit, creating a legal shield preventing them from doing so.

This is all as I understand it of course, not being a lawyer.

Lol I love how both of us got downrated for our responses. Thank you for the explanation, it makes much more sense now :)

gnasher729
Jun 1, 2011, 09:00 AM
Admittedly I'm not that well read up on this subject, but if they hold a legal patent and are not receiving royalty payments on it, isn't that unfair?

It shows. Most patents, especially in the software world, are what has been called "sub-prime patents". The idea behind patents is not that the inventor should get payments, the idea is that the inventor publishes his invention (so that the world can benefit from it) in exchange for a temporary monopoly on the invention. This good idea has been completely perverted. People create patents that are as vague as possible, so nobody can understand what they actually say, including the inventor, with the sole purpose of suing people who fall into the trap of doing something that is matched by the patent. The point is: Nobody wants this invention. Nobody needs it. It doesn't help anyone. Apple and all the iPhone developers have never, ever looked at the patent and used it to find out how to do something. I actually don't know of one single case where someone in the software industry extracted useful information from a patent that helped them building something. The amount of work in the "invention" is minuscule compared to the amount of work that is needed to actually create a working product.

Summary: Patents have values not by representing and protecting inventions, but by giving someone the tools to extort money from the people who actually create products. So actually, taking that patent and shoving it up their **** would be much more fair.

cmaier
Jun 1, 2011, 09:01 AM
What I find amazing is all the people on this thread calling Lodsys scum and wanting them dead for "picking on the little guy" yet Apple going after a teenager for selling some white iPhone parts is simply Apple protecting their IP.

Certainly Apple think the patents are valid or they wouldn't have licensed them. Even in Apple's letter, not once was the validity of the patents questioned, it was simply whether the developers fell under the license Apple obtained.

More likely Lodsys asked for a 5-figure or low 6-figure license, and apple decided to pay it rather than pay lawyers 6-figures to fight it. companies license patents every day despite believing them to be invalid, because it's too expensive to fight every battle in court. Patentholders know this, and thus they often ask for a small enough sum of money to prevent the accused infringer from fighting.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 1, 2011, 09:20 AM
Yep, exactly the same situation isn't it?

Apple the patent troll is suing Samsung's app developers.

Nothing whatsoever to do with ripping off a company's products...

You must be so proud to be able to smugly point that out to us all.

Actually, under law, it's EXACTLY the same situation. Those developers are ripping off a feature that Lodsys holds the patent to and not paying for it. How is that ANY different than what Samsung is allegedly doing to Apple other than it being software rather than hardware? :rolleyes:

You could make the argument that software patents are stupid in general and I would probably agree, but the law doesn't see it that way and even if they did, Samsung would get off the hook too because the ONLY thing they did was rip-off the appearance of the iOS products. Internally, they are not remotely the same thing. They do not run iOS. They do not run Apple software. The similarities are merely skin-deep. They fall under abstract GUI layout patents, which IMO are 10x worse than a software patent. If they were a valid form of patent, every car maker on earth would be in trouble for ripping off the looks of other car makers these days because MOST cars look and have features like other cars (e.g. Mazda ripped off Subaru's turbo-wagon WRX with the CX-7 and Subaru ripped off Mazda in '08 with the rear-end that looks like a Mazda on the hatchback. Lexus did the same thing with the rear-end on the RX (even the freaking names with RX/WRX/CX sound similar). Musicians re-use chord changes all the time (there's only so many to go around for pop and rock style music). If they could patent a chord change, music would be DEAD (well OK, some might say it is these days.... ;) ).

Frak the whole system. It stifles innovation (try to make a product that doesn't use hyperlinks on the Net) and leads to endless lawsuits. What the hell happened to products standing on their own merits and letting the consumer decide? :confused:

cmaier
Jun 1, 2011, 10:04 AM
Actually, under law, it's EXACTLY the same situation. Those developers are ripping off a feature that Lodsys holds the patent to and not paying for it. How is that ANY different than what Samsung is allegedly doing to Apple other than it being software rather than hardware? :rolleyes:


One major difference is that Lodsys is a "Non-Practicing Entity" ("NPE," or "troll"). This changes the legal contours. Indeed, the difference is recognized under the law - NPE's, for example, can almost never get an injunction. There are other differences as well.

For example, if Apple sues Samsung, Samsung can counter-sue Apple because Apple has its own products it sells, and thus might be infringing Samsung's patents/trademarks. As a result, you can bet Apple thinks more carefully before filing suit, because it knows a counter-suit is coming so its own case had better be pretty good. When an NPE sues, it doesn't have to worry about this. As long as it can come up with some good faith argument for infringement that passes the "laugh test," that's good enough - the other party can't counter-sue because the NPE can't possibly be infringing anything.

Another difference is that Apple and Samsung are generally aware of what each other are doing. They have reason to know about each other's patents because they are competitors, and when they see each other's products and they see some feature they haven't seen before, they have good reason to look into whether there is a patent involved, and thus they can avoid these patents. With an NPE, there is no product that serves as a warning that something is patented. There is just some (often nebulous) patent that the accused infringer undoubtedly doesn't even know exists.

Yet another difference is that NPE's almost always hire contingency lawyers - they don't have to pay their lawyers unless they get something in the suit. This leads to patent strategies designed to force an early settlement (so the contingency lawyers don't have to work too hard for their money and actually turn a profit) regardless of the merits, including suing as many entities as possible and asking for "nuisance value." This is not usually the case when competitors sue.

jacollins
Jun 1, 2011, 10:46 AM
LOL!!!! They do, and you won't.

The Lodsys patent trolls are about to be slayed by Apple's +5 Bastard Sword of Flame. This should prevent their regeneration. ;-)

What?

Dungeons and Dragons reference. Trolls can regenerate their health. The more common way of stopping that and killing them once and for all is with fire or acid.

aristotle
Jun 1, 2011, 10:47 AM
Forget 1000 bucks, patent trolls that lose their case should be force to commit seppuku. It would be the only honourable thing to do. It would also clean up the gene pool and prevent future lawsuits from the trolls.

old-wiz
Jun 1, 2011, 10:49 AM
I never realized how easy it was to get sued developing software using Apple provided or required tools. I'm glad I am out of that business.

jackryan
Jun 1, 2011, 10:57 AM
A direct quote from Lodsys' site:

http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-why-is-lodsys-contacting-application-publishers-and-website-publishers-rather-than-operating-system-vendors-or-device-manufacturers.html

"As an extended metaphor, in the hotel example, no one would expect the architect to not be paid, or for the nails to come for free. They get paid some subset of the overall value, but they get paid for their contribution to the solution under an agreement they have with the hotel owner. "

Using their own analogy, Lodsys is acting like the architect of the hotel attempting to extract payment from each hotel guest for the structure they enjoy, despite the fact that the hotel company already paid the architect for the plans. Do they really believe this to be reasonable?

ViviUO
Jun 1, 2011, 11:24 AM
Troll Lawyers need to be given the death penalty.

As they say in Texas, given a Texan any reason to shoot and he'll do it.

Watch out. I wished harm upon the *******s at lodsys and some self righteous, way-too-easily-offended lodsys supporter got my posts removed.

ssk2
Jun 1, 2011, 11:29 AM
Jesus H. Christ... Why are people getting SO ANGRY about this?

Let Lodsys take it through the courts, if they have a case then the courts will recognise that. If they don't (and that's my opinion right now), then they'll get thrown out and Apple/whoever will have a VERY good chance to counter-claim.

Some of the angst and emotion is ridiculous for what is essentially a company taking a risky legal move. Some of you need to grow up - its not like Lodsys have harmed your families.

cmaier
Jun 1, 2011, 11:35 AM
Watch out. I wished harm upon the *******s at lodsys and some self righteous, way-too-easily-offended lodsys supporter got my posts removed.

You wished physical harm on someone because you disapprove of his business model? It might be you who is too easily offended.

marmiteturkey
Jun 1, 2011, 11:42 AM
I am very surprised by the replies in the forum.

When Apple targets people for copyright and trademark infringements, they are supported in droves; as they should be.

But a company feels that their contract is violated and they are being assaulted by comments here.

If they company is right, I hope they take Apple to the bank, and vice versa.

I think this company maybe be right, or they have an exceptional poker face.
You need to understand the facts of the case. Lodsys bought the patents from someone else (who wasn't interested in suing app developers, and has since stated that he disapproves of what Lodsys are doing) specifically so they could attempt to do this. They did no work; they invented nothing; they are owed nothing; they are patent trolls in the purest sense. They spotted a patent that wasn't being enforced by its owner, and went for it, believing it was easy money (and they have the barefaced nerve to post a quote from Edison, a true inventor, about hard work on their crappy homepage!).

I hope Apple take Mark Small for every penny he's got.

A direct quote from Lodsys' site:

http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-why-is-lodsys-contacting-application-publishers-and-website-publishers-rather-than-operating-system-vendors-or-device-manufacturers.html

"As an extended metaphor, in the hotel example, no one would expect the architect to not be paid, or for the nails to come for free. They get paid some subset of the overall value, but they get paid for their contribution to the solution under an agreement they have with the hotel owner. "

Using their own analogy, Lodsys is acting like the architect of the hotel attempting to extract payment from each hotel guest for the structure they enjoy, despite the fact that the hotel company already paid the architect for the plans. Do they really believe this to be reasonable?

In fact, it's like Lodsys paying the real architect of the hotel for the right to say they designed it, and THEN trying to extract payment for every hotel built since. They're not even architects!

newfoundglory
Jun 1, 2011, 01:19 PM
Yes, they are a patent troll, but you can't blame them for trying.

With all the money and lawyers that Apple would have access to - remember people joked about Microsoft's lawyers in the 90's and 00's - they shouldn't have trouble (eventually) getting a good result if they sue Lodsys.

But I think Apple, like Lodsys, should move quickly and kick off the process.

The biggest problem is for devs - Apple vs. Lodsys is NOT the happy place for developers. The uncertainty. Not a happy place at all. And that could cause Apple some damage; maybe Apple could even sue for the current damage - $50 million maybe?

But the Lodsys vs App Maker cases might at least be put on hold by the courts waiting the outcome of Apple vs. Lodsys.

ViviUO
Jun 1, 2011, 05:25 PM
I wonder how much many of the posters' attitudes would change if THEY were the patent owners:

"Sir, your third cousin, twice removed just died and left you a base patent on click-to-upgrade. Apple and other major companies have already licensed it, so there's no dispute that it's valid."

"Wow! That's an incredible inheritance! But isn't everyone using this invention nowadays?"

"Yes sir, that's why it's worth millions. It's as if you had a patent on multi-touch or something."

"Hmm. Well, I don't want to be called a patent troll, so to heck with my family, let's give it away for free!"

The point is that their patents shouldn't be patents to begin with.

Also, I doubt anyone here gives a **** about Lodsys or their family members.

Now lets look at it from another perspective.

"Hey! I just created an App and I am making a living off of it! Finally I can live a comfortable life. But what's this? Some ass is suing me for using a button in my app? But buttons, menus, etc. have been around since the beginning of the GUI! Looks like I can't do this anymore."

So tell me, what does the world gain when we support the actions of scumbags like Lodsys?

kdarling
Jun 1, 2011, 06:07 PM
The point is that their patents shouldn't be patents to begin with.

Hindsight is wonderful.

Also, I doubt anyone here gives a **** about Lodsys or their family members.

You care about your own. If you bought a patent potentially worth millions, what would you do with it? Nothing? If so, perhaps I could interest you in some worthless patents as well, since you'd make the same off them.

"Hey! I just created an App and I am making a living off of it! Finally I can live a comfortable life. But what's this? Some ass is suing me for using a button in my app? But buttons, menus, etc. have been around since the beginning of the GUI! Looks like I can't do this anymore."

Don't oversimplify. They're not suing over just any button.

Don't be overdramatic about the effect on your life, either, since they're charging less than 1/2 cent on a 99 cent app. Compared to what Apple charges, it's nothing.

For that matter, your complaints sound like those who claim that software developers shouldn't charge fees either, since they're not selling a physical product, and are "just making free money from people". Sound familiar?

So tell me, what does the world gain when we support the actions of scumbags like Lodsys?

Am I supporting them? No. Am I calling for them to be shot, like some of the immature posters around here? No, not that either.

Personally, I think Apple and/or the developers involved, are going to have to fight and try to get the patent dissolved.

FroMann
Jun 1, 2011, 06:23 PM
Other then get attention I have no idea what the lawsuits are for.

fattire357
Jun 1, 2011, 07:33 PM
It shows. Most patents, especially in the software world, are what has been called "sub-prime patents". The idea behind patents is not that the inventor should get payments, the idea is that the inventor publishes his invention (so that the world can benefit from it) in exchange for a temporary monopoly on the invention. This good idea has been completely perverted. People create patents that are as vague as possible, so nobody can understand what they actually say, including the inventor, with the sole purpose of suing people who fall into the trap of doing something that is matched by the patent. The point is: Nobody wants this invention. Nobody needs it. It doesn't help anyone. Apple and all the iPhone developers have never, ever looked at the patent and used it to find out how to do something. I actually don't know of one single case where someone in the software industry extracted useful information from a patent that helped them building something. The amount of work in the "invention" is minuscule compared to the amount of work that is needed to actually create a working product.

Summary: Patents have values not by representing and protecting inventions, but by giving someone the tools to extort money from the people who actually create products. So actually, taking that patent and shoving it up their **** would be much more fair.


thanks for the info

fattire357
Jun 1, 2011, 07:35 PM
You need to understand the facts of the case. Lodsys bought the patents from someone else (who wasn't interested in suing app developers, and has since stated that he disapproves of what Lodsys are doing) specifically so they could attempt to do this. They did no work; they invented nothing; they are owed nothing; they are patent trolls in the purest sense. They spotted a patent that wasn't being enforced by its owner, and went for it, believing it was easy money (and they have the barefaced nerve to post a quote from Edison, a true inventor, about hard work on their crappy homepage!).

It's too bad that in this world that information will bear no significance on who actually wins in the courtroom.

D4F
Jun 1, 2011, 07:50 PM
Well... what if apple orchestrated the whole thing? SJ will look Godly on stage being tuff and stating how apple will save it's developers and 15 seconds later new iOS5 talk will pop up.

:D

cmaier
Jun 1, 2011, 08:22 PM
Other then get attention I have no idea what the lawsuits are for.

They are for money.

FroMann
Jun 1, 2011, 10:07 PM
They are for money.
I think they are going to lose more rather than gain.

cmaier
Jun 1, 2011, 10:43 PM
I think they are going to lose more rather than gain.

How, exactly? It seems to me the worst that happens is a court finds that Apple's license covers the 3rd party developers. Or maybe a court invalidates the patent. But how exactly does Lodsys, which doubtless hired its lawyers on contingency, lose money?

MattInOz
Jun 1, 2011, 11:05 PM
A direct quote from Lodsys' site:

http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-why-is-lodsys-contacting-application-publishers-and-website-publishers-rather-than-operating-system-vendors-or-device-manufacturers.html

"As an extended metaphor, in the hotel example, no one would expect the architect to not be paid, or for the nails to come for free. They get paid some subset of the overall value, but they get paid for their contribution to the solution under an agreement they have with the hotel owner. "

Using their own analogy, Lodsys is acting like the architect of the hotel attempting to extract payment from each hotel guest for the structure they enjoy, despite the fact that the hotel company already paid the architect for the plans. Do they really believe this to be reasonable?

Ummm.... but Architecture is under copyright, if we release the plans(copies) for building to start without some solid backing of Cash or enforceable credit agreement then our payment might as well be toast. We don't have much say in the use of the copy beyond that, unless someone copies the Architecture for profit.

At most the only action an Architect could take against the hotel would be stop them using professional photos in promotion of the Hotel. Guests are users of the building they don't produce anything copyright law considers a copy.

Patents are licenses for Implementations if that isn't different to Copies then why have two sets of law.

So I don't know if analogies involving anything other than Patent IP are even relevant. I don't think there any direct link other than the code Apple used to Implement the Patent is covered by copyright. I would have but that copyright property (pixie dust) would remain Apples to license under copyright as long as it only dealt with validly licensed implementation.

wackymacky
Jun 1, 2011, 11:34 PM
Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

It would aslo be cheaper to have the whole bord of Lodsys taken out back and shot.

Now that might be a fine idea, and I woudn't complain if $1.00 of each iMac/iPad this year went into such a fund. :rolleyes:

qtx43
Jun 1, 2011, 11:42 PM
Using their own analogy, Lodsys is acting like the architect of the hotel attempting to extract payment from each hotel guest for the structure they enjoy, despite the fact that the hotel company already paid the architect for the plans. Do they really believe this to be reasonable?Probably they do think just that. People can rationalize just about anything when easy money is involved. And now matter how stupid the vast majority of all software patents are, they still get granted as valid patents, and people still make money off of them. Which I expect will continue unless the law is changed (good luck with that).

Blu Reel
Jun 2, 2011, 02:30 AM
As I understand it, Lodsys, the patent holder is suing the 3rd party developers for using Lodsys' patented technology within the developers apps and to be clear, it's usage for one developer (if not all the developers) is in the in-app upgrade button.

So, if they "win" this lawsuit, wouldn't Lodsys then be able to sue every consumer that clicks on that upgrade button for using that patented technology without first setting up a licensing agreement with Lodsys? No? Ahh yes, the developer is incorporating the patented technology into their product to sell to the end-user. Ok so that's clear...

But,

If Lodsys wins this lawsuit, wouldn't that mean a company such as Intel, could now sue every PC builder/modder who resells these custom built PCs for not contacting Intel first and establish a license for using any motherboard that uses any Intel chipset that comes soldered onto the motherboard by the motherboard manufacturer not including the CPU? It's assumed that you paid for the CPU chip directly and therefore any licensing fee is included that purchase.

For example, any USB equipped motherboard whether it's made by Asus, Acer, Gigabyte, Dell(?), HP(?), Apple(Foxconn?) and so on, that's used to build a PC and then resold, the builder of these PCs is supposed to, according to Lodsys, contact the patent owner (license owner) of USB (Intel originally and the USB org now) and set up and pay for a separate license, even though the USB technology has been incorporated into a larger piece of technology (the motherboard) and the license paid for by the motherboard manufacturer.

Is it really the problem of the 3rd party developer that Intel or the USB org didn't negotiate a better deal with the motherboard manufacturers?

And yes, my "doomsday" threat is that any individual who builds a custom computer for someone else and gets paid something to do so, the onus is on the builder to contact all the patent holders who have a patented technology that's used in building a motherboard or a hard drive or even a memory card and work out a license agreement or face litigation by any of these patent holders. Anyone know who owns the patent for PCIe, Sata, 1000baseT, solder, 1/8" plug, digital audio, ASCII, or motherboard spacer screws? Anyone know which of these previous items are not applicable to the scenario that Lodsys is claiming? Only people who build motherboards know.

I don't pretend to know what the law states in this matter, but it seems to me that the onus is on the patent holders and the motherboard manufacturers to work out their licensing agreements and NOT the patent holders and the "developers" using these motherboards.

cmaier
Jun 2, 2011, 09:57 AM
As I understand it, Lodsys, the patent holder is suing the 3rd party developers for using Lodsys' patented technology within the developers apps and to be clear, it's usage for one developer (if not all the developers) is in the in-app upgrade button.

So, if they "win" this lawsuit, wouldn't Lodsys then be able to sue every consumer that clicks on that upgrade button for using that patented technology without first setting up a licensing agreement with Lodsys? No? Ahh yes, the developer is incorporating the patented technology into their product to sell to the end-user. Ok so that's clear...

Actually it's not clear. Whether the end-users could be sued or not depends entirely on the language of the claims. If the end-user is performing the claimed method, the end-user could be sued (in such a scenario the developers would be sued for inducing the direct infringement by the end-users). If the claims are system, rather than method, claims, then the developer is "manufacturing," selling, or offering to sell the infringing system (the software), and the end-user is not performing any acts of direct infringement and could not be sued. Off hand I cannot remember if the claims of this patent are method, system, or both.



If Lodsys wins this lawsuit, wouldn't that mean a company such as Intel, could now sue every PC builder/modder who resells these custom built PCs for not contacting Intel first and establish a license for using any motherboard that uses any Intel chipset that comes soldered onto the motherboard by the motherboard manufacturer not including the CPU? It's assumed that you paid for the CPU chip directly and therefore any licensing fee is included that purchase.

Probably not. There is a principle in patent law called "exhaustion." It's a very complicated body of law but essentially the idea is that, subject to various exceptions, if the patent holder sells a device embodying the patent to customer X, the patent holder's rights with respect to that device are "exhausted." Customer X is free to sell the device to Person Y, etc. But it gets complicated if Intel sells A, B, and C devices to customer X. Only by combining A, B, and C together is Patent Z infringed. Then what happens? There are recent court decisions about this sort of stuff (Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, TransCore v. ETC).

miografico
Jun 5, 2011, 07:52 AM
I am a die hard capitalist. (When it's not crony capitalism i.e. bailout capitalism) I am also an App Developer.

You want to know what fixes this patent troll crap completely? Patents should not be able to be treated like stocks and bonds and put up for sale to anyone with the highest bid. To file a patent as an inventor you should not have to be a performing entity (sell products), lets face it a lot of inventors are poor and cannot put their idea to use, but if you want to sell that patent you should only legally be able to do so to a performing entity. Nine times out of ten the original filer/inventor is not the one suing.

And for all this BS I hear about Lodsys has their rights and should have their day in court - all of you saying that are egregiously stupid. You have no freaking clue what it costs to get into a patent dispute and there is a reason why the bum chose the developers he chose. They cannot defend themselves!

This isn't Apple vs Microsoft, it's not Apple vs. Samsung this is akin to Walmart vs. Joe's Groceries. It's not criminal, but it certainly is predatory and disgusting.

Mr. Lodsys is not seeking half a penny on the dollar he's seeking a gigantic payout from Apple by forcing their hand holding hostage tiny companies. He's a human piece of garbage who has never invented a damn thing in his life.

A company whose sole purpose is holding patents are an affront to the patent system and the free-market system in general - and thus should be illegal.