PDA

View Full Version : Apple Steps Up in Lodsys Lawsuits, Files Motion to Intervene




MacRumors
Jun 10, 2011, 06:00 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/10/apple-steps-up-in-lodsys-lawsuits-files-motion-to-intervene/)


FOSS Patents (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/apple-enters-fray-against-lodsys-files.html) reports that Apple has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuits Lodsys has filed against seven iOS developers. Apple Inc. ("Apple") hereby respectfully moves to intervene as a defendant and counterclaim plaintiff in the above-captioned action brought by plaintiff Lodsys, LLC ("Lodsys") against seven software application developers (collectively, "Developers"), forallegedly infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,222,078 (the "078 patent") and 7,620,565 (the "565 patent" and, collectively, the "patents in suit"). Apple seeks to intervene because it is expresslyl icensed to provide to the Developers products and services that embody the patents in suit, free from claims of infringement of those patents.With the move, Apple is trying to interject itself in the lawsuits that it has otherwise not been a participant in. FOSS Patents believes its likely that Apple will be allowed in, though Lodsys can oppose the motion.

Also, while there's been no public confirmation, the site believes its likely that Apple has agreed to cover the defendant's costs and potential risks as "it's hard to imagine how else this could work."Apple states explicitly that the sued app developers are "are individuals or small entities with far fewer resources than Apple and [...] lack the technical information, ability, and incentive to adequately protect Apple's rights under its license agreement."Overall, it's good news for the developers affected by the lawsuit, but is still just the beginning of the process.

Article Link: Apple Steps Up in Lodsys Lawsuits, Files Motion to Intervene (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/10/apple-steps-up-in-lodsys-lawsuits-files-motion-to-intervene/)



BigPrince
Jun 10, 2011, 06:04 AM
wow....talk about Apple stepping up to the plate to protect the environment!

ComputersaysNo
Jun 10, 2011, 06:07 AM
What's that noise i hear? It sounds like charging a deathray or something. Oh well, just another day at Lodsys'office, nothing to worry about i guess.

jazzkids
Jun 10, 2011, 06:11 AM
It is nice to hear the Apple will be supporting the development community. I'm wondering how the ruling in the patent lawsuit with microsoft will affect this case too?

Good job Apple!

sillypooh
Jun 10, 2011, 06:13 AM
Bold move. I don't know many software (platform) companies who would have done that. The giant has a heart, protecting the villagers!

Not that the company had real choice here. Not doing so would have tarnished its reputation and viability of the platform. But still, it's cool, or smart, from their part.

Detlev
Jun 10, 2011, 06:13 AM
Yeah! This is so like the starship Enterprise coming out of nowhere and blasting a Romulan ship to smithereens. Way to go Apple!

uaecasher
Jun 10, 2011, 06:13 AM
nice move from apple.

padapada
Jun 10, 2011, 06:16 AM
Yeah! This is so like the starship Enterprise coming out of nowhere and blasting a Romulan ship to smithereens. Way to go Apple!

Burn the Lodsys MF's! :)

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 06:17 AM
I'm wondering how the ruling in the patent lawsuit with microsoft will affect this case too?

That case is completely different. If you followed i4i vs Microsoft, you'd know i4i is not a patent troll. They had been partners with Microsoft when building the technology and they were mostly responsible for it hence why they hold the patent on it. Before the project ended, Microsoft cut all ties, dumped i4i and implemented the technology themselves into Office without giving i4i any credit or compensation.

Microsoft got what they deserved in that case. Not to mention the whole hypocrisy of "patents are bad! See what i4i did to us ?" and then turning around and suing tons of other players for patents and threatening Linux with veiled "Linux might infringe some of our patents you know!" comments.

Please don't compare i4i to a simple patent troll.

ChristianJapan
Jun 10, 2011, 06:21 AM
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)

The sheapard protect the sheeps from the wolf ... Hope no sheep gets lost

SteveAbootman
Jun 10, 2011, 06:24 AM
This is excellent news. I wonder how much the presumed closed door talks at WWDC may have influenced this decision (or at the very least expedited Apple's action)

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 06:26 AM
This is excellent news. I wonder how much the presumed closed door talks at WWDC may have influenced this decision (or at the very least expedited Apple's action)

You don't take legal action of the sort based on talks that happened a few days prior. This move is calculated by Apple's legal team and they have been preparing for this scenario for quite a while if they filed this today.

Of course, anyone thinking this has blindsided Lodsys is being naive. Lodsys are probably as prepared for this as they were for Apple's "letter". They are asserting that Apple's license doesn't cover 3rd party developers, they didn't just invent that. This is a calculated move on their part since the beginning.

Now it remains to see which side the courts will pick as the one being right or wrong.

Otaviano
Jun 10, 2011, 06:34 AM
Good on them, hope the run these patent trolls into the ground.

eric_n_dfw
Jun 10, 2011, 06:38 AM
... you have 10 seconds to comply.
http://www.markwu.info/img/uploads-journal/ed-209.jpg




(above image blatantly deep-linked from http://www.markwu.info/miniblog/entry/website_designs_for_scifis_evil_corporations , please give them some hits! )

Pentad
Jun 10, 2011, 06:50 AM
I hate Software Patents but way to go Apple! I am glad to see them defending App Developers.

Maybe Google and Microsoft should get on-board as well?

gnasher729
Jun 10, 2011, 06:54 AM
It is nice to hear the Apple will be supporting the development community. I'm wondering how the ruling in the patent lawsuit with microsoft will affect this case too?

Not at all. Microsoft tried to make it easier to invalidate patents. Apple has a fully paid license to these patents, so it doesn't matter to Apple whether the patents are valid or not, and all the actions that are done that might be infringing the patents are done by Apple, which is fully licensed, and not by the developers. So Apple won't argue about these patents being valid, unless their lawyers find a way to make it expensive for Lodsys to handle this in court. Apple argues that their license allows them to implement these patents in their operating systems, and on their servers, and any developer can use Apple's OS and Apple's servers without needing a license.

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:00 AM
Any word if Google is also stepping up for the Android developer that is effected by this law suit? Was there a public statement by google?

Popeye206
Jun 10, 2011, 07:01 AM
Yeah! This is so like the starship Enterprise coming out of nowhere and blasting a Romulan ship to smithereens. Way to go Apple!

LOL! :) Good one!

Good for Apple!

Thunderhawks
Jun 10, 2011, 07:01 AM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/10/apple-steps-up-in-lodsys-lawsuits-files-motion-to-intervene/)


FOSS Patents (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/apple-enters-fray-against-lodsys-files.html) reports that Apple has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuits Lodsys has filed against seven iOS developers. With the move, Apple is trying to interject itself in the lawsuits that it has otherwise not been a participant in. FOSS Patents believes its likely that Apple will be allowed in, though Lodsys can oppose the motion.

Also, while there's been no public confirmation, the site believes its likely that Apple has agreed to cover the defendant's costs and potential risks as "it's hard to imagine how else this could work."Overall, it's good news for the developers affected by the lawsuit, but is still just the beginning of the process.

Article Link: Apple Steps Up in Lodsys Lawsuits, Files Motion to Intervene (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/10/apple-steps-up-in-lodsys-lawsuits-files-motion-to-intervene/)

Because of the way the American legal system works in the very end Lodsys will see money, either to go away or to be done with this lawsuit.

By Apple suing Lodsys will get less than they anticipated, but they will get $$$

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:05 AM
Apple stepping up in this is a win-win.

iOS Developers win: they know that they get protection from **** like this
Apple win: (small) Developers won't jump the ship out of fear

The success of iOS was based on lots and lots of indie Developers - the bigger names came much later in the game. Nice to see that Apple protects them (by now, Apple could do with the big names only - but still make lots of money with indie Developers)

rkmac
Jun 10, 2011, 07:05 AM
Good to see Apple helping out. Can't wait to see Lodsys regret the day the decided to take on Apple. Sadly, this being a legal dispute, I'll probably be waiting a while.

ciaocibai
Jun 10, 2011, 07:08 AM
Full credit to Apple for stepping up to the plate here. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

I do kind of wonder, since they get a 30% cut of in app purchases, surely they are entitled to be in the lawsuit?...

Popeye206
Jun 10, 2011, 07:09 AM
Any word if Google is also stepping up for the Android developer that is effected by this law suit? Was there a public statement by google?

Doing a quick search, it looks like Google is sitting back and letting Apple fight this battle.

It's sad if Google does not join in and defend the developers too.

tbobmccoy
Jun 10, 2011, 07:09 AM
Because of the way the American legal system works in the very end Lodsys will see money, either to go away or to be done with this lawsuit.

By Apple suing Lodsys will get less than they anticipated, but they will get $$$

This is only true if Apple ends with a beneficial settlement for Lodsys. Granted, most lawsuits end in settlement instead of judgment by a jury or judge, but just wanted to point out that it's not definite that Lodsys will get a payday from this.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 07:16 AM
Doing a quick search, it looks like Google is sitting back and letting Apple fight this battle.

It's sad if Google does not join in and defend the developers too.

Compared to iOS developers, there have been very few Android developers hit with letters, and I think none yet with lawsuits. Also, it would remain to be seen whether or not the Android developers that received letters even use Google's In-App billing framework, which is completely optional on Android.

At this point, Google might not even have a leg to stand on to come into the battle. Don't judge them, the situation is quite different for them than it is with Apple.

jowie
Jun 10, 2011, 07:17 AM
Yeah! This is so like the starship Enterprise coming out of nowhere and blasting a Romulan ship to smithereens. Way to go Apple!
This is so geeky and yet exactly how I see it in my mind too. :D

Optimus Frag
Jun 10, 2011, 07:18 AM
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)

Lodsys must be feeling like the space radar traffic controllers on Alderann when the Death Star rocked up and parked in orbit.

WTF IS THAT??!!! And why is the front glowing??!!

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:18 AM
full text of Apple motion can be found here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20070465-248/apple-tries-to-intervene-in-lodsys-lawsuit/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Interesting quote from there

The value of this license to Apple here lies in Apple’s ability, pursuant to the express terms of the license, to offer products and services embodying the patents in suit to the Developers, in return for theDevelopers’ agreement to pay Apple a percentage of their sales made using Apple’s products and services. The Developers, in turn, are able to use the products and services Apple provides to them free from claims of infringement of the patents in suit under the doctrines of exhaustion and first sale.

now we know part of the reason for the 30% cut ...

Bonte
Jun 10, 2011, 07:26 AM
Apple argues that their license allows them to implement these patents in their operating systems, and on their servers..

Ah, thats the thing where Lodsys disagrees, extra content for in-app purchases come from the developers own servers, not Apples.

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:34 AM
Ah, thats the thing where Lodsys disagrees, extra content for in-app purchases come from the developers own servers, not Apples.

No - it all comes from Apple servers. In 99% of the cases it is already in the app before the in-app purchase is done - it is just getting enabled through a flag without any additional downloads (was already downloaded from the apple server). Probably none of the small developers run their own servers.

Bonte
Jun 10, 2011, 07:52 AM
No - it all comes from Apple servers. In 99% of the cases it is already in the app before the in-app purchase is done - it is just getting enabled through a flag without any additional downloads (was already downloaded from the apple server). Probably none of the small developers run their own servers.

in-app updates that unlock a function don't need servers but everything else does, comics, books and all other downloaded in-app content come from external non-Apple servers.

.

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 08:06 AM
in-app updates that unlock a function don't need servers but everything else does, comics, books and all other downloaded in-app content come from external non-Apple servers.

.

so they should have sued comics and book apps ... not apps that enable features through in-app-purchase

ChazUK
Jun 10, 2011, 08:08 AM
... you have 10 seconds to comply.
Image (http://www.markwu.info/img/uploads-journal/ed-209.jpg)




(above image blatantly deep-linked from http://www.markwu.info/miniblog/entry/website_designs_for_scifis_evil_corporations , please give them some hits! )

Google supplied an Enforcment Droid that looked very similar to that. Problem is it force closed shortly after launch. :p

FloatingBones
Jun 10, 2011, 08:09 AM
What's that noise i hear? It sounds like charging a deathray or something. Oh well, just another day at Lodsys'office, nothing to worry about i guess.

Heh. When I saw the plans for Apple's new circular building in Cupertino; I immediately thought about about the world's largest circular structure in Switzerland and France: the LHC at CERN.

The 13th sub-basement of Apple's new facility will be an accelerator to create the elusive APT (Anti Patent-Trollium) particle. Don't sue 'em; just annihilate 'em.

awesomebase
Jun 10, 2011, 08:16 AM
It's times like this that provide me with a great reminder for why I buy Apple products and support them; its a small gesture on their part but truly stands out amongst the large IT corps! Go Apple!!

Thunderhawks
Jun 10, 2011, 08:21 AM
This is only true if Apple ends with a beneficial settlement for Lodsys. Granted, most lawsuits end in settlement instead of judgment by a jury or judge, but just wanted to point out that it's not definite that Lodsys will get a payday from this.

Litigation is always costly and if the outcome isn't totally clear a gamble, hence the many settlements.

Say Lodsys now gets 0.575 from Apple (I don't remember, but this number pops into my mind) they'll now get 0.625 or so as settlements and go away with (still) millions.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 08:22 AM
so they should have sued comics and book apps ... not apps that enable features through in-app-purchase

Why ? The patent as it stands covers the act of submitting feedback from an App to a central location. It's not about unlocking content at all.

Force10
Jun 10, 2011, 08:27 AM
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)

The sheapard protect the sheeps from the wolf ... Hope no sheep gets lost

Lodsys isn't a wolf; its one of those annoying little terrier dogs that chases after sheep and causes the more panicky ones to hurt themselves.

Then the shepherd comes along with a shotgun and blows its feckin head off.

ciTiger
Jun 10, 2011, 08:27 AM
Excellent! The best thing Apple could do for it's developers!

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 08:28 AM
Why ? The patent as it stands covers the act of submitting feedback from an App to a central location. It's not about unlocking content at all.

I agree - I just was responding to his comment in which he explaining the case as he understood it (in a wrong way) to point out that even if he would be true, the current law suits wouldn't make sense.

John.B
Jun 10, 2011, 08:35 AM
Hey, it's not like Google wouldn't do the same thing for their developers... Oh, wait... http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

Bonte
Jun 10, 2011, 08:35 AM
Why ? The patent as it stands covers the act of submitting feedback from an App to a central location. It's not about unlocking content at all.

Where can i find a summary of these patents? An app needs to submit information to unlock the content and download it. The developers that are sued all download extra content and levels from there servers.

network23
Jun 10, 2011, 08:36 AM
This isn't going to go much further, folks. Lodsys went after the devs instead of Apple because they thought they could scare them into compliance. Now that Apple has requested to intervene, we'll see Lodsys back down and withdraw soon enough.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

eric_n_dfw
Jun 10, 2011, 08:37 AM
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)

Lodsys must be feeling like the space radar traffic controllers on Alderann when the Death Star rocked up and parked in orbit.

WTF IS THAT??!!! And why is the front glowing??!!

... that's no moon, it's a....

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 08:39 AM
Where can i find a summary of these patents? An app needs to submit information to unlock the content and download it. The developers that are sued all download extra content and levels from there servers.

In all the previous stories about this patent and Lodsys ? MRoogle is your friend.

This isn't going to go much further, folks. Lodsys went after the devs instead of Apple because they thought they could scare them into compliance. Now that Apple has requested to intervene, we'll see Lodsys back down and withdraw soon enough.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

You assume Apple took Lodsys by surprise and they weren't prepared for it. I think you're in for a nasty surprise yourself as you find out Lodsys had planned for all of this.

mingoglia
Jun 10, 2011, 08:51 AM
I too am all warm and fuzzy about Apple stepping up and throwing it's weight around. We do however need to remember that this isn't entirely a night in shining armor moment.... the outcome of this lawsuit can/will completely change the way Apples vision is carried out in the future. I would say they have even more at stake than any individual developer named in the lawsuit. There's no way Apple would/could sit this one out.

Mike

Henriok
Jun 10, 2011, 08:54 AM
Is in-app purchasing something that's commonplace on Android? Does Google provide a common API for Android developers to use?
It might be that Lodsys identifies that _everyone_ on iOS are using the technology Apple licensed from Lodsys, and therefor are subjects to Lodsys' patent. As payed applications are less common on Android and developers are less prone to use Marketplace and Google's APIs, Lodsys might just nog give enough damn to worry about them at this point.

John.B
Jun 10, 2011, 09:03 AM
Is in-app purchasing something that's commonplace on Android? Does Google provide a common API for Android developers to use?
It might be that Lodsys identifies that _everyone_ on iOS are using the technology Apple licensed from Lodsys, and therefor are subjects to Lodsys' patent. As payed applications are less common on Android and developers are less prone to use Marketplace and Google's APIs, Lodsys might just nog give enough damn to worry about them at this point.
The difference is that the Android Market doesn't make anybody any real money. Lawyering 101: Sue the guy with an actual revenue stream.

whatever
Jun 10, 2011, 09:11 AM
Doing a quick search, it looks like Google is sitting back and letting Apple fight this battle.

It's sad if Google does not join in and defend the developers too.

I do not believe it's the same situation with Google as it is for Apple.

One of the reasons that Apple will be able to win this is because iOS developers play in Apple's closed sandbox. Although some thought this was a bad thing (mostly forum trolls who do not understand the huge costs that Apple incurs to keep the iOS app infrastructure running), it's actually a good thing for the small development houses.

iCrizzo
Jun 10, 2011, 09:15 AM
Apple has hungry lawyers that will eat this case! :apple:

stubert
Jun 10, 2011, 09:18 AM
FOSS Patents believes its likely that Apple will be allowed in...


... the site believes its likely that Apple has agreed to cover the defendant's costs and potential risks ...


It's

#error

wolfshades
Jun 10, 2011, 09:19 AM
Lodsys: Ok buddy, I see you've got some lunch money. Pay the toll, f**ker!
Dev.: ummm
Apple: (taps Lodsys on shoulder) Pardon me. Is there a problem here?
Lodsys: HOLY CRAP!!
Apple: oh you mean like the stuff running out your pant leg?
Lodsys: I'm sorry? My statement was taken out of context? Any of that work for you?
Apple: please go take a bath. You're starting to smell.

chukronos
Jun 10, 2011, 09:25 AM
Very glad to hear they are doing this. Way to go, Apple!

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 09:42 AM
Who here is surprised that KnightWRX is Lodsys' one man cheering section? :p

Who said I'm cheering for them ? Quite the contrary, as a iOS developer, I hope they lose.

Don't mistake me being a realist with "cheering". I just don't think Apple is going to crush Lodsys and go for a sure win. This is all planned on both sides and this will be a drawn out battle with no clear outcome in sight. I think Lodsys' patent is full of crap, they gamed the system to extend its usable lifetime and never made anything from it. However, there has been little forthcoming prior art to invalidate it.

It remains to be seen what the language in Apple's license is and if it does indeed hold up in court whether it covers or not 3rd parties. Lodsys isn't a bunch of dummies, no patent trolls should be underestimated. The language is probably written in a way that supports what Lodsys is doing and Apple probably have a good defense based on a different interpretation.

The winning interpretation will be up to the judge/jury on the case if this ever goes to court (if no settlement is reached).

Seriously, the level of discussion on this site is ridiculous sometimes. Why do I even have to explain this ? Take your "hater" propaganda elsewhere seriously. Just going "Go Apple! They'll crush Lodsys!" will only make you disappointed if Apple ever loses. It's much better to analyse the situation coldly and realise that Lodsys has lawyers too and those lawyers aren't dumb. They knew all this was coming, same as Apple knew their letter wouldn't stop the lawsuits and might even provoke them (which it did). This is all planned moves on both sides following a much bigger strategy than any of us are privy to.

Mr. Gates
Jun 10, 2011, 09:43 AM
Patent trolls fighting Patent trolls

Yup

maflynn
Jun 10, 2011, 09:54 AM
Great move by apple. Protecting the developers and hopefully stifling this patent troll

hurtle
Jun 10, 2011, 10:08 AM
Any word if Google is also stepping up for the Android developer that is effected by this law suit? Was there a public statement by google?

Apple have apparently licensed the tech in question, so they're ready to defend their devs - given Google's track record with Android so far, avoiding licenses with Sun now Oracle, do we really think that they licensed anything? I'm not so sure.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 10:12 AM
Apple have apparently licensed the tech in question, so they're ready to defend their devs - given Google's track record with Android so far, avoiding licenses with Sun now Oracle, do we really think that they licensed anything? I'm not so sure.

Yes, Google has the same license. However, unlike Apple's IAP, In-App Billing is optional with Google and no Android developers have been targetted by a lawsuit, and very few have received letters.

It is unstated if those that did receive letters on the Android side even use In-App Billing and thus it is unclear if they fall under the umbrella of Google's license.

Completely different situations folks, drop the Google hate, it has no place in this thread.

mcmlxix
Jun 10, 2011, 10:13 AM
Yeah! This is so like the starship Enterprise coming out of nowhere and blasting a Romulan ship to smithereens. Way to go Apple!Lodsys is more like the Ferengi.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 10, 2011, 10:18 AM
Who said I'm cheering for them ? Quite the contrary, as a iOS developer, I hope they lose.

Don't mistake me being a realist with "cheering". I just don't think Apple is going to crush Lodsys and go for a sure win. This is all planned on both sides and this will be a drawn out battle with no clear outcome in sight. I think Lodsys' patent is full of crap, they gamed the system to extend its usable lifetime and never made anything from it. However, there has been little forthcoming prior art to invalidate it.

It remains to be seen what the language in Apple's license is and if it does indeed hold up in court whether it covers or not 3rd parties. Lodsys isn't a bunch of dummies, no patent trolls should be underestimated. The language is probably written in a way that supports what Lodsys is doing and Apple probably have a good defense based on a different interpretation.

The winning interpretation will be up to the judge/jury on the case if this ever goes to court (if no settlement is reached).

Seriously, the level of discussion on this site is ridiculous sometimes. Why do I even have to explain this ? Take your "hater" propaganda elsewhere seriously. Just going "Go Apple! They'll crush Lodsys!" will only make you disappointed if Apple ever loses. It's much better to analyse the situation coldly and realise that Lodsys has lawyers too and those lawyers aren't dumb. They knew all this was coming, same as Apple knew their letter wouldn't stop the lawsuits and might even provoke them (which it did). This is all planned moves on both sides following a much bigger strategy than any of us are privy to.

Well you need to remember Lodsys did not write nor make the agreement with Apple and others. It was the company that Lodsys bought up that made the agreement with Apple.

Also it needs to be noted that Apple and others got like 1000 patents from that first company so crap patents like this one just happen to be in it but it was a huge block of patents. It could easily be that the agreement does allow them to pass it on to the devs as a patent troll like Lodsys did not write it.

Rafterman
Jun 10, 2011, 10:22 AM
Bold move. I don't know many software (platform) companies who would have done that. The giant has a heart, protecting the villagers!

Not that the company had real choice here. Not doing so would have tarnished its reputation and viability of the platform. But still, it's cool, or smart, from their part.

Well, "heart" is a bit too far. More likely, Apple is protecting the lifeblood of its business, the developers. Without them, no software. No software, no iPad and iPhone popularity. No iPad and iPhone popularity, no profit ;)

Besides, since Apple gets a cut of the purchases made from within apps, Apple has a vested interest in protecting this cash flow.

John.B
Jun 10, 2011, 10:25 AM
Why do you think that everyone who thinks your a hater is fanboy?

You bag on Apple so consistently and frequently, why wouldn't people assume you have it in for Apple?

Who said I'm cheering for them ? Quite the contrary, as a iOS developer, I hope they lose.

Don't mistake me being a realist with "cheering". I just don't think Apple is going to crush Lodsys and go for a sure win. This is all planned on both sides and this will be a drawn out battle with no clear outcome in sight. I think Lodsys' patent is full of crap, they gamed the system to extend its usable lifetime and never made anything from it. However, there has been little forthcoming prior art to invalidate it.

It remains to be seen what the language in Apple's license is and if it does indeed hold up in court whether it covers or not 3rd parties. Lodsys isn't a bunch of dummies, no patent trolls should be underestimated. The language is probably written in a way that supports what Lodsys is doing and Apple probably have a good defense based on a different interpretation.

The winning interpretation will be up to the judge/jury on the case if this ever goes to court (if no settlement is reached).

Seriously, the level of discussion on this site is ridiculous sometimes. Why do I even have to explain this ? Take your "hater" propaganda elsewhere seriously. Just going "Go Apple! They'll crush Lodsys!" will only make you disappointed if Apple ever loses. It's much better to analyse the situation coldly and realise that Lodsys has lawyers too and those lawyers aren't dumb. They knew all this was coming, same as Apple knew their letter wouldn't stop the lawsuits and might even provoke them (which it did). This is all planned moves on both sides following a much bigger strategy than any of us are privy to.

reputationZed
Jun 10, 2011, 10:25 AM
Release the unicorns!!!

ikir
Jun 10, 2011, 10:29 AM
Bold move. I don't know many software (platform) companies who would have done that. The giant has a heart, protecting the villagers!

Totally agree. Well done Apple. I really hope Apple win!

q64ceo
Jun 10, 2011, 10:30 AM
We have been linked to Fark.

Warning: Possible Not Safe For Work language here (http://www.fark.com/comments/6282469/Apple-to-patent-troll-Oh-hell-no-They-be-my-biatches-You-best-be-steppen-out-of-my-crib-yo)

BC2009
Jun 10, 2011, 10:38 AM
Yeah! This is so like the starship Enterprise coming out of nowhere and blasting a Romulan ship to smithereens. Way to go Apple!

I'm not so sure I would equate Lodsys to the Romulans... more like Ferengi. Romulans are at least respectable.

Any word if Google is also stepping up for the Android developer that is effected by this law suit? Was there a public statement by google?

Google may be doing so once those lawsuits get filed. It is in their interests too.


Lodsys must be feeling like the space radar traffic controllers on Alderann when the Death Star rocked up and parked in orbit.

WTF IS THAT??!!! And why is the front glowing??!!

It makes me smile to think of it this way, but unfortunately Lodsys probably has their next step planned and it will be a matter of who has planned the most moves ahead and what the courts think.


now we know part of the reason for the 30% cut ...

Why ? The patent as it stands covers the act of submitting feedback from an App to a central location. It's not about unlocking content at all.

Yes... Apple's original letter to Lodsys points out that all "feedback" goes to Apple and it is Apple who is selling the product. Apple as the middle man here seems to be the basis of why they feel Lodsys' claim is invalid.


You assume Apple took Lodsys by surprise and they weren't prepared for it. I think you're in for a nasty surprise yourself as you find out Lodsys had planned for all of this.

Who here is surprised that KnightWRX is Lodsys' one man cheering section? :p

You are misreading KnightWRX. While it is easy to want to cheer when the star player runs onto the field to help the underdog take down their opponent, it is important to remember that there is still a game to be played. I'm sure Lodsys and Apple each have their own escalation plans -- it is a game of chess. Lodsys obviously hoped Apple would not get involved, but their quick response to Apple's letter shows that they were expecting that. Apple was required to send a letter before taking legal action but could not make their next move until Lodsys made theirs. This is a game that will involve motions and counter-motions and oppositions to each motion. Certainly it is good that Apple has decided to back the developers, but unfortunately this is far from over.

The stakes have just gone up and the question Lodsys is asking themselves right now is "if Apple becomes the defendant, is the potential revenue worth the investment of legal fees and the risk of losing the lawsuit?" The next move by Lodsys will be to file an opposition to Apple's motion, then a decision will be made which will set the stage for the next round.

One possible end-game that Lodsys may be hoping for is a renegotiated license from Apple that clearly covers app developers and an increased license fee to go with that. Apple believes their current license covers them, Lodsys believes it does not.

xxBURT0Nxx
Jun 10, 2011, 10:42 AM
Apple Inc. ("Apple") hereby respectfully moves to intervene as a defendant and counterclaim plaintiff in the above-captioned action brought by plaintiff Lodsys, LLC ("Lodsys") against seven software application developers (collectively, "Developers"), forallegedly infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,222,078 (the "078 patent") and 7,620,565 (the "565 patent" and, collectively, the "patents in suit"). Apple seeks to intervene because it is expresslyl icensed to provide to the Developers products and services that embody the patents in suit, free from claims of infringement of those patents.

lol who wrote this quote? try a little spell check before posting an article with incorrectly spelled words and not using the space bar.

Anyways, glad apple is backing the devs. Sucks that there are companies like Lodsys out there who just bank on suing for patents that they own but don't even use. Even though the USPTO is pretty whack as is, I think they should at least make some kind of clause, if you don't use whatever you are patenting in an actual product or service within maybe 24 months or something that anyone can then use the patent without worrying of infringement. I'm not sure about all of the technicalities of the PTO, so maybe this would be dumb, but it's certain that something should be done.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 10:43 AM
Why do you think that everyone who thinks your a hater is fanboy?

I don't, I think everyone who thinks I'm a hater is just grossly misinformed.

You bag on Apple so consistently and frequently, why wouldn't people assume you have it in for Apple?

When did I bag on Apple in this thread ? Next time you attack me, at least wait for me to do what you think you're accusing me of doing. I wasn't bagging on Apple by saying Lodsys probably saw this move coming. I wasn't even commenting about Apple.

Seriously, we had the same kind of "Lodsys is now dead! Apple has won!" crap in the thread about Apple sending the letter. Those sure turned out to be insightful posts uh ? Lodsys sure backed off and ran home with their tails between their legs uh ?

It's too early in this game to even start thinking Apple has won anything. Take a chill pill and let's wait for this to at least go through a few more motions.

jonnysods
Jun 10, 2011, 10:45 AM
Oh man, Apple is armed to the teeth with top lawyers. Lodsys are in for it!

moderately
Jun 10, 2011, 10:45 AM
Who said I'm cheering for them ? Quite the contrary, as a iOS developer, I hope they lose.

Don't mistake me being a realist with "cheering".

A lot of assumptions are being made in this thread. That Lodsys's lawyers are smart and ready for Apple is just another one.

vikesfan2001
Jun 10, 2011, 10:49 AM
This is an exciting story , Apple steppin in , when men stand up the boys set down!!

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 10:52 AM
That Lodsys's lawyers are smart and ready for Apple is just another one.

It's a much safer assumption than the contrary and results in less disappointment if it happens to not be true.

Would you rather underestimate your opponent or overestimate them ? Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

JAT
Jun 10, 2011, 10:58 AM
It remains to be seen what the language in Apple's license is and if it does indeed hold up in court whether it covers or not 3rd parties.
You were looking for a reason for 30% cut on IAPs. Have you found any, yet?

It's becoming more and more clear that Lodsys doesn't understand the "walled garden" of Apple's APIs.

likemyorbs
Jun 10, 2011, 10:58 AM
I don't want to rain on the warm and fuzziness parade, but apple is doing this for their own best interests, not the developers. If it had no benefit for them to defend the developers, they probably wouldn't have. Did no one see this part of the article?

lack the technical information, ability, and incentive to adequately protect APPLE'S rights under its license agreement."

So basically, they're saying "instead of directly suing us they're suing no name developers to make things more difficult for apple, we better defend ourselves."

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 11:02 AM
You were looking for a reason for 30% cut on IAPs. Have you found any, yet?

You mean the 0.5% this would cost them extra ? Where's the other 29.5% going then ? :p

John.B
Jun 10, 2011, 11:08 AM
When did I bag on Apple in this thread ? Next time you attack me, at least wait for me to do what you think you're accusing me of doing. I wasn't bagging on Apple by saying Lodsys probably saw this move coming. I wasn't even commenting about Apple.

Seriously, we had the same kind of "Lodsys is now dead! Apple has won!" crap in the thread about Apple sending the letter. Those sure turned out to be insightful posts uh ? Lodsys sure backed off and ran home with their tails between their legs uh ?

It's too early in this game to even start thinking Apple has won anything. Take a chill pill and let's wait for this to at least go through a few more motions.
Point taken. Mea culpa.

trrosen
Jun 10, 2011, 11:09 AM
Because of the way the American legal system works in the very end Lodsys will see money, either to go away or to be done with this lawsuit.

By Apple suing Lodsys will get less than they anticipated, but they will get $$$

Not a chance once Apple is in it's all over. Lodsys doesn't have the resources to fight Apple especially since they also have to fight another group in NY that has challenged their patents after they sent letters to the wrong companies. This wont make it to court. Apple can and will bankrupt Lodsys in a few months of filings and motions easily. The troll woke up a dragon and will be eaten.

Lodsys is dead they cant even give up and go home now if they do Apple will sue to establish it's rights and Lodsys will cease to exist buried under the legal burden.

EricBrian
Jun 10, 2011, 11:12 AM
I don't want to rain on the warm and fuzziness parade, but apple is doing this for their own best interests, not the developers. If it had no benefit for them to defend the developers, they probably wouldn't have. Did no one see this part of the article?

lack the technical information, ability, and incentive to adequately protect APPLE'S rights under its license agreement."

So basically, they're saying "instead of directly suing us they're suing no name developers to make things more difficult for apple, we better defend ourselves."

I was wondering the same thing.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 11:14 AM
Not a chance once Apple is in it's all over. Lodsys doesn't have the resources to fight Apple especially since they also have to fight another group in NY that has challenged their patents after they sent letters to the wrong companies. This wont make it to court. Apple can and will bankrupt Lodsys in a few months of filings and motions easily. The troll woke up a dragon and will be eaten.

Lodsys is dead they cant even give up and go home now if they do Apple will sue to establish it's rights and Lodsys will cease to exist buried under the legal burden.

Some people sure like living with their heads in the cloud. Lodsys is getting licensing money from the likes of Apple, Microsoft and Google. If anything, Apple is paying for Lodsys' efforts in this case through their licensing of their patent.

This isn't going to be an easy fight for either party and both will stick through it.

JAT
Jun 10, 2011, 11:16 AM
You mean the 0.5% this would cost them extra ? Where's the other 29.5% going then ? :p

Wow, lawyers must be cheap in Canada!

Wardotzu
Jun 10, 2011, 11:16 AM
They had been partners with Microsoft when building the technology and they were mostly responsible for it hence why they hold the patent on it. Before the project ended, Microsoft cut all ties, dumped i4i and implemented the technology themselves into Office without giving i4i any credit or compensation.

Ala - IBM & OS/2, Sybase and SQL Server, etc.

Thus the phrase was coined "Good programmers write great code. Great programmers steal it."

I can't believe Microsoft was able to repeat this pattern of theft, they went for the cookie jar one too many times and got caught red-handed. While not a fanboy, I have to give Apple credit for innovation, creativity and above all else standing up for developers in the market they created.

iRobby
Jun 10, 2011, 11:30 AM
Yeah! This is so like the starship Enterprise coming out of nowhere and blasting a Romulan ship to smithereens. Way to go Apple!

not yet Starship Enterprise won't be built til 2015 in Cupertino

miografico
Jun 10, 2011, 11:36 AM
A lot of people here have absolutely no fundamental understanding of the nature of civil/business law and proceedings. More than that a lot of people here have no basis in reality and actually associate companies as being living entities that you can love and care for and will love and care for you. That to me even as a business owner is very frightening.

There is only one thing fundamentally obvious about this case: the patents are garbage and pertain to the vast majority of our online or disconnected world. That is the fundamental reason the Foresee case in Illinois and the power player law firm behind the Declaratory Judgment filing will succeed.

You should all be thanking, Foresee, Best Buy, Adidas and a host of other parties that have been initiating filings over the tenure of these suits to have these patents declared invalid.

Apple is last in line here and simply filed a motion to intervene. Apple waited they sat on their hands before typing a strongly worded letter when they should have filed a motion for Declaratory Judgment and a change of venue.

"Oh, but they had to wait and research the facts!" Freaking nonsense! It would take any undergraduate engineer let alone anyone with a college education to come to the conclusion that these patents are at the extreme of, "broad based" and therefore technically invalid. This isn't a patent for an invention it's a patent for an idea.

You want to know why they were last to the plate? You want to know why Google hasn't stepped up to the plate? You want to know why Microsoft hasn't stepped up to the plate? Because they are the idiots that licensed the damn patents to begin with and perpetuated all this nonsense! You want to know why they did that? Because the previous owner of the patents was an inside player in the tech world and they were supporting one of their own.

How about some accountability for companies prolonging the life of baseless patents by simply licensing in bulk and not investigating the nature of what they are licensing to begin with???

A lot of you (not all there are some developers here) have absolutely no idea how much this nonsense has slowed down contract development for general use apps and enterprise apps. That's why Apple is involved - they are already losing money - not because they love and care about you!

Newsflash: a corporate entity cannot love and care about you it's not alive!!!

lilcosco08
Jun 10, 2011, 11:39 AM
not yet Starship Enterprise won't be built til 2015 in Cupertino

More like Aperture Laboratories
http://i.imgur.com/0GlRw.jpg

trrosen
Jun 10, 2011, 11:40 AM
Some people sure like living with their heads in the cloud. Lodsys is getting licensing money from the likes of Apple, Microsoft and Google. If anything, Apple is paying for Lodsys' efforts in this case through their licensing of their patent.

Sorry no. Apple has never paid Lodsys a cent! Apple licensed from the previous owner of the patents. Lodsys has very few actual "Sales" and as far as anyone can tell is composed of one lawyer who bought 4 old mostly worthless patents and decided to go trolling. Apple can beat this guy bloody with legal costs and wait for him to bleed to death. How many years can they exist with no income? At this point nobody will pay till after Apple's suit is decided and that suit will be put on hold until the suits to invalidate their patents are decided. Die quick or die slow Lodsys cant survive long enough to ever win.

moderately
Jun 10, 2011, 11:46 AM
Some people sure like living with their heads in the cloud. Lodsys is getting licensing money from the likes of Apple, Microsoft and Google. If anything, Apple is paying for Lodsys' efforts in this case through their licensing of their patent.

You usually pay better attention. Apple licensed the patents from an earlier holder. Apple has not paid Lodsys for them.

miografico
Jun 10, 2011, 11:49 AM
Sorry no. Apple has never paid Lodsys a cent! Apple licensed from the previous owner of the patents. Lodsys has very few actual "Sales" and as far as anyone can tell is composed of one lawyer who bought 4 old mostly worthless patents and decided to go trolling. Apple can beat this guy bloody with legal costs and wait for him to bleed to death. How many years can they exist with no income? At this point nobody will pay till after Apple's suit is decided and that suit will be put on hold until the suits to invalidate their patents are decided. Die quick or die slow Lodsys cant survive long enough to ever win.

Are you that crazy? :eek:

Do you really think a patent license works the same way as you buying a coffee pot from Sears? Do you not understand that it's more than likely a perpetuating license with perpetuating income over the life of the license and that Lodsys more than likely has a mighty war chest from it?

Do you understand how much it takes in legal fees to get into a patent dispute?

It's one thing to support one side (and if you do it should be the developers) over another, but posting pure conjecture about something you know zilch about - the licensing of these patents - is bordering on insanity.

LastLine
Jun 10, 2011, 11:54 AM
Yeah! This is so like the starship Enterprise coming out of nowhere and blasting a Romulan ship to smithereens. Way to go Apple!

I had this in mind personally, but hey :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiENHeSoA1I&feature=player_detailpage#t=35s

gnasher729
Jun 10, 2011, 12:14 PM
Are you that crazy? :eek:

Do you really think a patent license works the same way as you buying a coffee pot from Sears? Do you not understand that it's more than likely a perpetuating license with perpetuating income over the life of the license and that Lodsys more than likely has a mighty war chest from it?

Please. Reality check. Apple bought this license as a part of a package deal, and they didn't buy the license from Lodsys, but from the previous owner. Lodsys has not and will never, ever receive one penny of fees for this license from Apple. And Lodsys has just been sued by Adidas, Best Buy, and WE Energies over exactly the same patent, which will hopefully put a bit of drain onto their "mighty" war chest that doesn't contain any money from Apple. These three and other companies are asking for a declaratory judgement against Lodsys.

Just found this funny bit of information:

On June 7, 2011 Foresee Results filed for declaratory judgment against Lodsys in northern Illinois, related to Lodsys claims against Adidas, Best Buy and WE Energies. Foresee is represented by McDermott Will & Emery. The claim by Foresee alleges that several Lodsys patents are invalid. The venue of Northern Illinois was chosen because Foresee asserts that Lodsys actually is doing business there rather than their published Texas location. "..this Court has personal jurisdiction over Lodsys because Lodsys' Chief Executive Officer and sole employee resides in, and conducts business from, this Judicial District." Michael Shanahan of McDermott says that the patents at issue (the same as the iPhone lawsuits) are actually invalid.

One employee! There is also a nice analysis here: http://www.applepatent.com/2011/06/lodsys-anatomy-of-********-claim-chart.html Anatomy of ******** claim! And it seems that all employees of the company are on MacRumors and have voted me down!

bbeagle
Jun 10, 2011, 12:15 PM
Do you really think a patent license works the same way as you buying a coffee pot from Sears? Do you not understand that it's more than likely a perpetuating license with perpetuating income over the life of the license and that Lodsys more than likely has a mighty war chest from it?

Do you understand how much it takes in legal fees to get into a patent dispute?


First, Lodsys may be getting money from licensing of the patent, they might not be. We don't know. Apple could have paid an upfront fee for the patent (which did not go to Lodsys), or they are paying per unit sold.

Second, lawyers don't cost anything if you are a sole proprietor of a company and you are also a lawyer. This seems to be the case for Lodsys. This one person company can file and fight court cases for relatively nothing. He is wealthy right now, and is using his scheme here to try to become extremely wealthy.

Buying him out is EXACTLY what he wants. This one of the main problems with our legal system in the United States.

He is trying to sue the little guy because the little guy doesn't have lawyers. This is just like the MPAA suing individual people for pirating - it's too costly for the average person to fight these lawsuits.

miografico
Jun 10, 2011, 12:26 PM
Please. Reality check. Apple bought this license as a part of a package deal, and they didn't buy the license from Lodsys, but from the previous owner. Lodsys has not and will never, ever receive one penny of fees for this license from Apple. And Lodsys has just been sued by Adidas, Best Buy, and WE Energies over exactly the same patent, which will hopefully put a bit of drain onto their "mighty" war chest that doesn't contain any money from Apple. These three and other companies are asking for a declaratory judgement against Lodsys.

First, Lodsys may be getting money from licensing of the patent, they might not be. We don't know. Apple could have paid an upfront fee for the patent (which did not go to Lodsys), or they are paying per unit sold.

Second, lawyers don't cost anything if you are a sole proprietor of a company and you are also a lawyer. This seems to be the case for Lodsys. This one person company can file and fight court cases for relatively nothing. He is wealthy right now, and is using his scheme here to try to become extremely wealthy.

Buying him out is EXACTLY what he wants. This one of the main problems with our legal system in the United States.

He is trying to sue the little guy because the little guy doesn't have lawyers. This is just like the MPAA suing individual people for pirating - it's too costly for the average person to fight these lawsuits.

Read the filings! The owner of Lodsys is not representing himself.

Who on earth even claimed that? Mark Small is not representing himself - once again a case of things being posted as fact in this forum when they could not be further from the truth.

Lodsys is being represented by one: Mike Goldfarb from the firm: Kelley Donion Gill Huck Goldfarb whose base of operations is out of Seattle Washington.

Reality check - fact check before posting falsehoods.

Added: Mr. Small of Lodsys is also being represented at times by one: William E. Davis III of: The Davis Firm, P.C. whose speciality is IP law.

bbeagle
Jun 10, 2011, 12:38 PM
Read the filings! The owner of Lodsys is not representing himself.

Who on earth even claimed that? Mark Small is not representing himself - once again a case of things being posted as fact in this forum when they could not be further from the truth.


I'm wrong. I didn't read the filings.

But my gut instinct because of the wordings of the his emails, and the way he is going about this, is that Mark Small is just trying to make it rich, and is only able to do this because he either (a) knows the lawyers, and they will work for him cheaper than normal - maybe because the payoff is so big if they win or (b) he has enough money to fight big companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and he thinks he can win, or (c) he's nuts

miografico
Jun 10, 2011, 01:15 PM
Facts!

The original inventor:

Daniel H. Abelow (Whose most recent patent filing is also nonsense if you look it up http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100070345 )

Who they were sold to:

Intellectual Ventures

Who founded Intellectual Ventures?

Nathan Myhrvold founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring from his position as chief strategist and chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation.

http://www.intellectualventures.com/WhoWeAre/OurTeam/Bio/Nathan_Myhrvold.aspx

Who they were sold to after Intellectual Ventures?

Mark Small of Lodsys LLC

Who is Mr. Small from his Linkedin Profile:

CEO Lodsys LLC Information Technology and Services industry February 2011 Present (4 months)

Strategic Advisor Independent Management Consulting industry September 2010 Present (9 months)...

VP, Enterprise Sales North America Websense, Inc Public Company; WBSN; Computer Software industry October 2006 July 2010 (3 years 10 months)

Responsible for North American Enterprise Sales organization

VP of Sales, Americas Code Green Networks, Inc. Privately Held; 201-500 employees; Computer & Network Security industry December 2005 September 2006 (10 months)

Senior Vice President, Sales McAfee Public Company; MFE; Computer & Network Security industry October 1998 November 2005 (7 years 2 months)...

Education

University of California, Davis BA, Political Science, International Relations 1974 1979"

The case that deals with Apple Developers:

RFC Case Number: P-L11-272C
Court Case Number: 2:11-cv-00272-TJW
File Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Plaintiff: Lodsys, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC
Christopher M. Huck, Michael A. Goldfarb of Kelley
Donion Gill Huck & Goldfarb PLLC
Defendant: Combay, Inc.
Iconfactory, Inc.
Illusion Labs AB
Michael G. Karr d/b/a Shovelmate
Quickoffice, Inc.
Richard Shinderman
Wulven Game Studios
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Court: Texas Eastern District Court
Judge: Judge T. John Ward

So before posting a retort you might want to...just maybe... research what you are even posting about.

Don Kosak
Jun 10, 2011, 01:18 PM
I won't comment on this case in particular, because I haven't researched it.

It is common practice though for the Law Firms running these cases to take a large percentage of the licensing revenue instead of billing a flat rate for services. The Patent owner seldom needs to take all the risk or pay for the entire legal bill.

As long as the risk/reward ratio makes sense, Patent owners can usually find a firm to represent them. Of course the owner of the patent only gets a fraction of the settlement in these cases.

CFreymarc
Jun 10, 2011, 01:44 PM
One of the most dangerous places for a third party is between a mother and her child.

Tigger11
Jun 10, 2011, 02:44 PM
In all the previous stories about this patent and Lodsys ? MRoogle is your friend.



You assume Apple took Lodsys by surprise and they weren't prepared for it. I think you're in for a nasty surprise yourself as you find out Lodsys had planned for all of this.


I respectfully will disagree. The one man company has ran around like a bull in a china shop so far and I dont expect them to do much better in the future. Starting 7 lawsuits early (before the 21 days had ran out) was a direct response to Apples letter and frankly a silly move, his two lawyers now have 7 cases to work, all while others are trying to get the patent thrown out. A better move would have been to sue Apple, (because they are going to get joined anyways) and only have one case to litigate. Now he's paying lawyers hours for 6 cases he doesnt need. In reality I think some have agreed to pay him, he's suing others that havent and had no idea Apple would get into the mess he stirred up.

Truffy
Jun 10, 2011, 02:50 PM
I think this is what's known as 'enlightened self-interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest)'

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 03:05 PM
I respectfully will disagree. The one man company has ran around like a bull in a china shop so far and I dont expect them to do much better in the future. Starting 7 lawsuits early (before the 21 days had ran out) was a direct response to Apples letter and frankly a silly move, his two lawyers now have 7 cases to work, all while others are trying to get the patent thrown out. A better move would have been to sue Apple, (because they are going to get joined anyways) and only have one case to litigate. Now he's paying lawyers hours for 6 cases he doesnt need. In reality I think some have agreed to pay him, he's suing others that havent and had no idea Apple would get into the mess he stirred up.

Sue Apple based on what? For already paying the license?

But that is the exact problem, Apple (as a producer) is already paying the license which should cover the developers (as consumers). The whole suit is about if developers are covered by this license or not - and for that they have to sue the developers, not Apple. (Well, Lodsys claims it does not cover and sues for license)

kdarling
Jun 10, 2011, 03:18 PM
This is similar to when Microsoft declared last year that they would defend anyone sued over any IP licensed from them.

Apple had to jump in, because they're protecting their own license rights and revenue.

Apple stands to lose far more than the developers involved. Apple could lose millions in revenue from developers frightened away from doing IAPs.

As for the developers, the Lodsys fee (0.575%) is extremely tiny in comparison to other hands in their pot.

If a developer sells $1,000 worth of IAPs, then...


$300 goes to Apple with their 30% fee, leaving $700 profit for the dev.
$150 or more goes to taxes out of the profit.
$4 goes to Lodsys out of the profit.

mdelvecchio
Jun 10, 2011, 03:23 PM
in-app updates that unlock a function don't need servers but everything else does, comics, books and all other downloaded in-app content come from external non-Apple servers.

even tho the *content* may reside on a 3rd-party server, the "buy more" mechanism is on the app and coordinated w/ apple's servers. thats what Lodsys is suing over, not the content. the mechanism. its definitely on apple's servers.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 03:42 PM
I respectfully will disagree. The one man company has ran around like a bull in a china shop so far and I dont expect them to do much better in the future. Starting 7 lawsuits early (before the 21 days had ran out) was a direct response to Apples letter and frankly a silly move, his two lawyers now have 7 cases to work, all while others are trying to get the patent thrown out. A better move would have been to sue Apple, (because they are going to get joined anyways) and only have one case to litigate. Now he's paying lawyers hours for 6 cases he doesnt need. In reality I think some have agreed to pay him, he's suing others that havent and had no idea Apple would get into the mess he stirred up.

Sue Apple for what exactly ? He needs to sue infringers. That's the 3rd party developers. You think this guy and his lawyers didn't know Apple would react to them attacking the iOS eco-system ? You think after the letter, they didn't know Apple would step into the lawsuits ?

They filled the lawsuits as a response to the letter to force district (Eastern Texas, where patent plaintiff have better chances of winning) before Apple could bring in a declaratory judgment motion in front of a district that isn't so friendly to patent holders.

What they are doing seems pretty calculated to me. After the letter, it was sure that pushing the attack on the eco-system was going to result in Apple getting involved. The letters were just testing the water. I bet this is all in a bid to either get bought out or to get more licensing money from Apple. This is what is making this guy and his business dangerous to the eco-system. Sure he needs to be stop, the question is though, is there a way ? If the patent is legit (and seeing how old the filing date is, prior art and obviousness are going to be that much harder to prove) and Apple's license isn't as bullet proof as they think it is, Apple might be in for one big payout to save their eco-system.

And anyone saying that Lodsys is getting nothing from Apple due to getting the license from the previous owners, tell me this : Have you seen Apple's licensing agreement ?

Tigger11
Jun 10, 2011, 04:39 PM
Sue Apple based on what? For already paying the license?

But that is the exact problem, Apple (as a producer) is already paying the license which should cover the developers (as consumers). The whole suit is about if developers are covered by this license or not - and for that they have to sue the developers, not Apple. (Well, Lodsys claims it does not cover and sues for license)


They could sue Apple for building into there iOS APIs, functions that allow developers to violate there patent. That is the crux of there case, iOS developers are using Apples APIs designed for in App purchases to carry our (wait for it) in App purchases, which they claim is a violation of Apples rights they have already paid for with respect to the patent. Android is much more likely to be in trouble for this, because while Google has paid for the patent, many (most) aren't using Googles API to do in app purchases, so all those developers could be in violation of the patent, and they don't have the "we are using Googles API" excuse to throw out.
-Tig

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 04:49 PM
They could sue Apple for building into there iOS APIs,

The patent isn't about APIs. It's about communicating feedback from an app back to a central source. The APIs themselves don't infringe, it's what the developers are making with those APIs that does.

RichardBeer
Jun 10, 2011, 06:51 PM
Go on Apple, step in the ring and bleed those patent sharks of every last drop. Make sure there's some unemployment on Lodsys's part by the time you are through.

caspersoong
Jun 11, 2011, 07:43 PM
Hopefully Lodsys is beaten badly enough that no other company would attempt this.

0815
Jun 11, 2011, 08:36 PM
Seems like Lodsys was looking for some easy money and brought now almost every major company against them. Some companies were already paying licenses - the result will hopefully be that the patents are getting declared invalid which will result in putting Lodsys out of business since all they have to offer are some pretty lame (soon invalid) patents. Guess they weren't anyway doing to good since most license deals were with the previous owner through some bulk licenses and they figured before shutting down its worth a try to milk it a bit more (not much too loose).

Tigger11
Jun 11, 2011, 10:04 PM
The patent isn't about APIs. It's about communicating feedback from an app back to a central source. The APIs themselves don't infringe, it's what the developers are making with those APIs that does.

Sorry, you are basically wrong, and now arguing against your basic premise anyways. You believe that Lodsys wanted and expected Apple to get involved. If that were true, they could have filed because the APIs were written to violate the patent, Steve talked about in app purchases when it was added its not like developers did sneaky things and got it to do this, its the expected result from the APIs. They also could have sued apple because they are selling Apps that violate there patent, they also could have sued Apple for the money they are getting and transferring to developers for the In App purchases that they believe violate the patent. They didn't do that, instead they sued at least 7 developers not even waiting for the 21 days they promised the developers to negotiate once the letter from Apple is published, that doesn't sound like a plan coming together that sounds like a plan falling apart. Which anyone who knows Mark Small from his McAfee days, would say that sounds like Mark if you told them what happened. I honestly don't think Lodsys has a leg to stand on in the suit, I am just pointing out that KnightWRX's theory that this is exactly what Lodsys expected to happen and they haven't been surprised by Apples actions seem more then a little far fetched.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 11, 2011, 10:12 PM
Sorry, you are basically wrong, and now arguing against your basic premise anyways. You believe that Lodsys wanted and expected Apple to get involved. If that were true, they could have filed because the APIs were written to violate the patent, Steve talked about in app purchases when it was added its not like developers did sneaky things and got it to do this, its the expected result from the APIs. They also could have sued apple because they are selling Apps that violate there patent, they also could have sued Apple for the money they are getting and transferring to developers for the In App purchases that they believe violate the patent. They didn't do that, instead they sued at least 7 developers not even waiting for the 21 days they promised the developers to negotiate once the letter from Apple is published, that doesn't sound like a plan coming together that sounds like a plan falling apart. Which anyone who knows Mark Small from his McAfee days, would say that sounds like Mark if you told them what happened. I honestly don't think Lodsys has a leg to stand on in the suit, I am just pointing out that KnightWRX's theory that this is exactly what Lodsys expected to happen and they haven't been surprised by Apples actions seem more then a little far fetched.


No knight is right. They could not file suit with Apple. It is impossible to file suit with Apple because Apple already had an agreement with the former owner of the patents that Lodsys bought out.
So they go after the smaller devs hoping that Apple would get involved and pay millions to make Lodsys go away.

cmaier
Jun 11, 2011, 10:36 PM
Sue Apple for what exactly ? He needs to sue infringers. That's the 3rd party developers. You think this guy and his lawyers didn't know Apple would react to them attacking the iOS eco-system ? You think after the letter, they didn't know Apple would step into the lawsuits ?

They filled the lawsuits as a response to the letter to force district (Eastern Texas, where patent plaintiff have better chances of winning) before Apple could bring in a declaratory judgment motion in front of a district that isn't so friendly to patent holders.

The flaw in your reasoning (and it's a small one) is that these cases are not going to turn on issues of patent law, and hence choice of venue is probably not in Lodsys' favor. E.D.Tex. has all sorts of patent local rules (and perhaps juries) that give some advantages to patent holders suing for patent infringement. But the issue in this case is going to be whether or not Apple is licensed and whether the license is exhausted or passes through to the app developers. While I'm sure Apple would rather be in N.D.Cal., I doubt they are too concerned at being in E.D.Tex. given the strategy they are likely to take.

And anyone saying that Lodsys is getting nothing from Apple due to getting the license from the previous owners, tell me this : Have you seen Apple's licensing agreement ?

Of course not. But given Quanta and TransCore it would likely be pretty difficult to draft a license that doesn't pass through to the developers (not impossible, of course). I also know enough about this type of situation to suspect that Apple's attorneys wouldn't have paid for a license in the first place unless they were pretty confident the license would pass through - this is standard procedure anytime an infrastructure provider is contemplating a license deal.

TJCacher
Jun 12, 2011, 06:13 AM
Heh. When I saw the plans for Apple's new circular building in Cupertino; I immediately thought about about the world's largest circular structure in Switzerland and France: the LHC at CERN.

The 13th sub-basement of Apple's new facility will be an accelerator to create the elusive APT (Anti Patent-Trollium) particle. Don't sue 'em; just annihilate 'em.

I haven't seen anyone else mention it, but IBM is apparently attempting to patent the concept of using a computer to enforce a patent portfolio. If granted and upheld, this patent would do a lot to alleviate patent trolling. I am attracted by the meta-nature of this approach (trolling the trolls). Let's hope IBM's attempt to invent its own kind of APT is successful.

MythicFrost
Jun 12, 2011, 06:21 AM
Don't try to take a bears honey. Especially not an Apple bear.

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2011, 07:06 AM
Sorry, you are basically wrong, and now arguing against your basic premise anyways. You believe that Lodsys wanted and expected Apple to get involved. If that were true, they could have filed because the APIs were written to violate the patent, Steve talked about in app purchases when it was added its not like developers did sneaky things and got it to do this, its the expected result from the APIs. They also could have sued apple because they are selling Apps that violate there patent, they also could have sued Apple for the money they are getting and transferring to developers for the In App purchases that they believe violate the patent. They didn't do that, instead they sued at least 7 developers not even waiting for the 21 days they promised the developers to negotiate once the letter from Apple is published, that doesn't sound like a plan coming together that sounds like a plan falling apart. Which anyone who knows Mark Small from his McAfee days, would say that sounds like Mark if you told them what happened. I honestly don't think Lodsys has a leg to stand on in the suit, I am just pointing out that KnightWRX's theory that this is exactly what Lodsys expected to happen and they haven't been surprised by Apples actions seem more then a little far fetched.

I never went against my basic premise. The APIs are merely tools made that can be used to infringe on this patent. They don't require a license of the patent to exist. However, a developer using those APIs to make tools would need one.

Lodsys did expect Apple to intervene, by attacking the eco-system. If Apple didn't intervene, they would have been shedding developers (the smaller ones that can't afford the stress and costs of lawsuits) like crazy, which would have been bad for them.

In the end, Lodsys is expecting Apple is give them more money for a broader license that covers 3rd party. That's the "plan", you can be sure about that. Apple believes their license already does.

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 08:05 AM
I never went against my basic premise. The APIs are merely tools made that can be used to infringe on this patent. They don't require a license of the patent to exist. However, a developer using those APIs to make tools would need one.

Lodsys did expect Apple to intervene, by attacking the eco-system. If Apple didn't intervene, they would have been shedding developers (the smaller ones that can't afford the stress and costs of lawsuits) like crazy, which would have been bad for them.

In the end, Lodsys is expecting Apple is give them more money for a broader license that covers 3rd party. That's the "plan", you can be sure about that. Apple believes their license already does.

Knight has been exactly right here on many counts. The lawsuit against the seven developers were not about API's. They were about what those API's allowed the developers to accomplish - in app purchasing.

I unlike lots of people here - who get their posts voted up even though they haven't the faintest clue - design for the platform so I had to read through the filings to know what I was dealing with in case one of my clients was ever sued.

Even if you do not read through the filings it's plainly obvious by going to Lodsys's own website and reading their response to Apple's letter that it was never about the API's which we use, but the lack of licensing for the result of using those API's.

It's also plainly obvious why they didn't sue Apple to begin with, but if you don't get it yet:

1.) They are already in a contractual relationship with Apple as Apple is licensed and no one knows the terms of that agreement. Apple would most likely crush them in court on what would not be a patent dispute, but a contract dispute in relation to patents.

2.) Apple has a history of saying piss off to smaller organizations that try to sue them and would simply hold the processes up before it even went to court.

It was a bold move on their part because unfortunately now Apple is backed into a corner and only has three options:

1.) Try to hold up the process as long as possible with legal maneuvers and pray Illinois moves fast enough to throw the patents out for being too broad based. That would however not stop the process in Texas as that case came first and they could only use it against the plaintif to make their case.

2.) Pay them off if the Texas court decides against the developers with Apple as codefendant with a settlement. Then turn around and countersue them if the patents are declared invalid.

3.) Enter into a private settlement before the case goes before the judge in Texas and then turn around and sue them if the patents are declared invalid in Illinois.

If you're a gambling man the patents will be more than likely be declared invalid. This isn't Joe Schmoe who initiated the declaratory judgment proceeding, but a moderately sized tech company with one of the best IP law firms in the country, and with the backing of some of the biggest companies in America that want these patents thrown out.

No one here has any idea what the original license(s) between Intellectual Ventures and Apple looked like, but a lot of people sure like to spew out BS like they do. All I keep hearing is, "No, no you're wrong Apple never paid Lodsys one cent!" assuming that patent agreement licenses are like as I said before: Buying a coffee pot from Sears.

Of course Apple originally paid Intellectual Ventures, but it is honestly very doubtful that they bought a lifetime license to the patent(s) and Lodsys may very well be receiving licensing income from it still. Let's say Lodsys never received license payments from Apple as it was a one time payment to Intellectual Ventures, it then becomes very doubtful that the IV CEO made a lifetime one time payment licensing deal with one of the biggest players in tech, and the license was soon set to expire anyway.

Tigger11
Jun 12, 2011, 03:25 PM
I never went against my basic premise. The APIs are merely tools made that can be used to infringe on this patent. They don't require a license of the patent to exist. However, a developer using those APIs to make tools would need one.

Lodsys did expect Apple to intervene, by attacking the eco-system. If Apple didn't intervene, they would have been shedding developers (the smaller ones that can't afford the stress and costs of lawsuits) like crazy, which would have been bad for them.

In the end, Lodsys is expecting Apple is give them more money for a broader license that covers 3rd party. That's the "plan", you can be sure about that. Apple believes their license already does.


Again KnightWRX, you are proving my point. You believe they wanted Apple to get into this. Even if I were to agree that they can't sue Apple directly (which neither I nor several others with actual law degrees believe is true) your side still hasnt explained why you would start at least 7 cases when your goal is to get money from Apple. That is 6 more cases then they need to do that, and for Lodsys that silly since those lawyers need to get paid. Evans' First Law is don't believe its Rocket Science, when sheer stupidity is more likely, and given Mike Small's involvement really makes those who know him lean towards the stupid option.

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2011, 03:48 PM
Again KnightWRX, you are proving my point. You believe they wanted Apple to get into this. Even if I were to agree that they can't sue Apple directly (which neither I nor several others with actual law degrees believe is true) your side still hasnt explained why you would start at least 7 cases when your goal is to get money from Apple. That is 6 more cases then they need to do that, and for Lodsys that silly since those lawyers need to get paid. Evans' First Law is don't believe its Rocket Science, when sheer stupidity is more likely, and given Mike Small's involvement really makes those who know him lean towards the stupid option.

What point of yours did I prove ? Going after 7 is simply shock tactics. If they went after 1, it can be ignored. I still firmly believe all of this is calculated by Lodsys and what they want is a settlement from Apple (go after the big pockets right ?).

And look just above your post, someone went into even more details than I ever could. I'd rather over-estimate my ennemies and be prepared than under-estimate them and get caught in their trap when it's too late.

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 04:12 PM
Again KnightWRX, you are proving my point. You believe they wanted Apple to get into this. Even if I were to agree that they can't sue Apple directly (which neither I nor several others with actual law degrees believe is true) your side still hasnt explained why you would start at least 7 cases when your goal is to get money from Apple. That is 6 more cases then they need to do that, and for Lodsys that silly since those lawyers need to get paid. Evans' First Law is don't believe its Rocket Science, when sheer stupidity is more likely, and given Mike Small's involvement really makes those who know him lean towards the stupid option.

One, there aren't seven cases get your facts straight. There is one case with seven co-defendants. Two, what are they going to sue for? No wait let me ask you some better questions: What do you do for living? Are you in development? Are you in tech in any way in general? Do you read license agreements when you install your software?

I don't think anyone who has posted in this particular thread thus far has a law degree because there is so much misinformation, and ass backward rhetoric, I wouldn't want to get involved if I was a lawyer and member of this forum.

Apple is contractually bound to LodSys and LodSys contractually bound to Apple they have a patent license between them. Apple indemnifies themselves from suits when you agree to use Xcode to develop for their platform(s) and they also indemnify themselves for all submissions to both the iOS and the Mac App Store. You agree when you click, "I accept" that they are not liable for using their software/systems in the event of a suit.

So, let me make this clear again and in a much shorter post. LodSys could not sue Apple over the patent(s) they can only sue LodSys over their licensing agreement to those patent(s) and vis-a-vis.

A licensing agreement suit pertaining to the usage of patents (which could involve LodSys claiming Apple gives broad use to developers and that wasn't agreed upon) is a patent licensing dispute - not a patent infringement case.

Apple would crush LodSys in a simple licensing case. They have the resources to drag a licensing case out ad infinitum, and because Apple indemnifies itself from recourse by all developers the case would go nowhere if that were LodSys's primary argument.

Why is it so hard to grasp that?

cmaier
Jun 12, 2011, 04:17 PM
What point of yours did I prove ? Going after 7 is simply shock tactics. If they went after 1, it can be ignored. I still firmly believe all of this is calculated by Lodsys and what they want is a settlement from Apple (go after the big pockets right ?).


That would be a weird litigation strategy. It's far more common for NPE's to go after small pockets and demand far less than it would cost to litigate. They go after 5-10 at a time to spread the litigation costs, and use the earnings from the first round to fund litigation on the next. The last thing Lodsys really wanted was to have to fight Apple.

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 04:25 PM
That would be a weird litigation strategy. It's far more common for NPE's to go after small pockets and demand far less than it would cost to litigate. They go after 5-10 at a time to spread the litigation costs, and use the earnings from the first round to fund litigation on the next. The last thing Lodsys really wanted was to have to fight Apple.

That's a ridiculous assumption. Each case has their motive Best Buy, Adidas etc, but out of the developers they chose to sue as it pertains to Apple (this is one suit not seven) they would be receiving pennies on the dollar per month in a licensing deal if they won - and if that was their real intention.

If you cannot see the strategy was to bypass a license dispute suit by hitting Apple where it hurts then you're obviously a bad Risk player.

This was a gamble for them. They are going to lose because of the other non related cases they have pending, but their intention all along was for Apple to get involved.

Lets see here do I want $50 a month from some no name developers or do I want $50 million upfront in a new patent licensing agreement with Apple!

cmaier
Jun 12, 2011, 04:29 PM
That's a ridiculous assumption. Each case has their motive Best Buy, Adidas etc, but out of the developers they chose to sue as it pertains to Apple (this is one suit not seven) they would be receiving pennies on the dollar per month in a licensing deal if they won - and if that was their real intention.

If you cannot see the strategy was to bypass a license dispute suit by hitting Apple where it hurts then you're obviously a bad Risk player.

This was a gamble for them. They are going to lose because of the other non related cases they have pending, but their intention all along was for Apple to get involved.

Lets see here do I want $50 a month from some no name developers or do I want $50 million upfront in a new patent licensing agreement with Apple!

I'm probably a bad Risk player - I'm just an ignorant patent litigator, and I was commenting on what, in my experience, is the standard strategy by NPEs. Fighting Apple costs them (or their contingency lawyers) millions and millions of dollars. Fighting small developers and fighting entities that don't have real skin in the game (because they don't really lose anything beyond the initial payout if the patents stand) is essentially free - most such cases settle before anyone's even appeared in court.

And ain't no one getting $50M upfront from Apple - Lodsys knows this.

And answer me this, smart guy - if they wanted a confrontation with Apple, why didn't they just sue them? Despite the nonsense on this thread, they presumably could have sued Apple, despite the license, for INDUCING patent infringement by the developers. In the alternative they could have sued for a declaratory judgment that the license doesn't extend to third-party developers.

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 04:42 PM
I'm probably a bad Risk player - I'm just an ignorant patent litigator, and I was commenting on what, in my experience, is the standard strategy by NPEs. Fighting Apple costs them (or their contingency lawyers) millions and millions of dollars. Fighting small developers and fighting entities that don't have real skin in the game (because they don't really lose anything beyond the initial payout if the patents stand) is essentially free - most such cases settle before anyone's even appeared in court.

And ain't no one getting $50M upfront from Apple - Lodsys knows this.

I read you bio. I saw what you were.

As a lawyer why don't you then ask yourself why they chose not to go after the iOS success stories? Where is Rovio in this suit? (Angry Birds) Or do I have to go down the list of companies they could have chosen to sue.

You're a lawyer I am a businessman we disagree on some points either way we should both agree that if you look at the offer they originally tendered and who they chose to sue - it was a calculated decision and even if they prevailed they would make nothing in terms of licensing income.

I stand firm on if they directly approached Apple it's a licensing dispute with zero leverage and if they attack the ecosystem it's a potential body-blow that Apple has to compromise in defense.

What you say makes sense if this were a different case where the defendants were all big name players, but it makes zero sense in the context you put it.

Say Apple never got involved and they did prevail in this initial suit. What's next? They use that as the go ahead to target all iOS developers? You don't think Rovio and bigger names than that wouldn't burry them in a mound of lawsuits initiated from their side(s). Even if they were that ballsy they would have to have a printout of all the legal addresses for all the developers on the App store because they wouldn't Google search over 100k developers for their legal addresses. You think Apple is going to gladly hand that over?

No one says this guy is all together in the head in terms of realistic expectations, but I can see right through the core to what he wants whether it is legally reasonable in your point of view or not. He wants a big payout not chump change every month from shoestring budget companies.

cmaier
Jun 12, 2011, 04:48 PM
I read you bio. I saw what you were.

As a lawyer why don't you then ask yourself why they chose not to go after the iOS success stories? Where is Rovio in this suit? (Angry Birds) Or do I have to go down the list of companies they could have chosen to sue.

You're a lawyer I am a businessman we disagree on some points either way we should both agree that if you look at the offer they originally tendered and who they chose to sue - it was a calculated decision and even if they prevailed they would make nothing in terms of licensing income.

I stand firm on if they directly approached Apple it's a licensing dispute with zero leverage and if they attack the ecosystem it's a potential body-blow that Apple has to compromise in defense.

What you say makes sense if this were a different case where the defendants were all big name players, but it makes zero sense in the context you put it.

Say Apple never got involved and they did prevail in this initial suit. What's next? They use that as the go ahead to target all iOS developers? You don't think Rovio and bigger names than that wouldn't burry them in a mound of lawsuits initiated from their side(s). Even if they were that ballsy they would have to have a printout of all the legal addresses for all the developers on the App store because they wouldn't Google search over 100k developers for their legal addresses. You think Apple is going to gladly hand that over?

No one says this guy is all together in the head in terms of realistic expectations, but I can see right through the core to what he wants whether it is legally reasonable in your point of view or not. He wants a big payout not chump change every month from shoestring budget companies.

Again I ask (perhaps you missed it) - why didn't they just sue Apple seeking a declaratory judgment that the license doesn't cover the developers, or sue Apple for inducing patent infringement by the developers? If Lodsys' goal was to confront Apple, this would have made a lot more sense, and guaranteed them a choice of venue.

Spending $500 of attorney time to earn a few thousand dollars a month isn't a bad deal, and there are a LOT of little developers. Spending $5M to earn $1M isn't a good deal. And, again, if he thinks he's going to get $50M from Apple, he could have sued Apple instead of putzing around with the little developers and hoping Apple gets involved.

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 05:21 PM
Again I ask (perhaps you missed it) - why didn't they just sue Apple seeking a declaratory judgment that the license doesn't cover the developers, or sue Apple for inducing patent infringement by the developers? If Lodsys' goal was to confront Apple, this would have made a lot more sense, and guaranteed them a choice of venue.

Spending $500 of attorney time to earn a few thousand dollars a month isn't a bad deal, and there are a LOT of little developers. Spending $5M to earn $1M isn't a good deal. And, again, if he thinks he's going to get $50M from Apple, he could have sued Apple instead of putzing around with the little developers and hoping Apple gets involved.

Ok so in your perfect world why did Apple let is go this far? Why did they let Foresee be the first to ask for a declaratory judgment invalidating the patents and a change of venue? You're asking questions like you and I have foresight.

My assumption and I am sticking to it is that he was advised he would make little to nothing trying to track down thousands upon thousands of developers and get them to pay up as opposed to striking a blow right between Apple's eyes in hopes of a payout. I am sticking to that and no matter what your credentials are I am not looking at it from the legally reasonable standpoint. I am looking at it from the if I was a crazy #### one man patent-troll business standpoint.

But, why don't you ask yourself a question since you yourself are an IP litigator. You really think he didn't expect Apple to get involved after he filed suit? Was it not ever so obvious that would happen? You wouldn't advise your client that what you are doing is goading a mammoth corporation to try to intervene to save their market?

And, don't be trite with your $50 million is an absurdity that, "ain't" going to happen. This is a multibillion dollar industry and if their back was against the wall, and that was the only option to make it go away - it would happen in a heartbeat.

This was all a game and it doesn't matter anyway because he has overplayed his hand.

We should all be thanking Foresee and not Apple. Apple dropped the ball on this with their BS strongly worded letter.

cmaier
Jun 12, 2011, 05:39 PM
Ok so in your perfect world why did Apple let is go this far? Why did they let Foresee be the first to ask for a declaratory judgment invalidating the patents and a change of venue? You're asking questions like you and I have foresight.

My assumption and I am sticking to it is that he was advised he would make little to nothing trying to track down thousands upon thousands of developers and get them to pay up as opposed to striking a blow right between Apple's eyes in hopes of a payout. I am sticking to that and no matter what your credentials are I am not looking at it from the legally reasonable standpoint. I am looking at it from the if I was a crazy #### one man patent-troll business standpoint.

But, why don't you ask yourself a question since you yourself are an IP litigator. You really think he didn't expect Apple to get involved after he filed suit? Was it not ever so obvious that would happen? You wouldn't advise your client that what you are doing is goading a mammoth corporation to try to intervene to save their market?

And, don't be trite with your $50 million is an absurdity that, "ain't" going to happen. This is a multibillion dollar industry and if their back was against the wall, and that was the only option to make it go away - it would happen in a heartbeat.

This was all a game and it doesn't matter anyway because he has overplayed his hand.

We should all be thanking Foresee and not Apple. Apple dropped the ball on this with their BS strongly worded letter.

I don't think you addressed my question. If lodsys's end goal was to extract money from Apple, why didn't they sue Apple instead of the third parties?

Instead you seem to have changed the subject. Why did Apple let it get this far? What is it you wanted Apple to do? They made pretty much the only motion they could make. The one thing they could have done differently is earlier sought declaratory judgment that the license covered third parties, but there is difficulty perhaps with standing - the threats were directed not at Apple but at third parties. Personally, though, if it were me I would have suggested trying it, but the end result is essentially the same other than venue. Either way, Apple is going to argue this is a contract interpretation, not a patent infringement case. Either way Apple is involved and running the case. The only difference is location.

And as for whether he expected Apple to get involved, who knows? But given that Apple has already bought a license (thus making it difficult, but not impossible, for Apple to dispute patent validity), and given that he is asking for so little from each developer, yeah, I think he didn't expect Apple to get involved.

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 05:47 PM
I don't think you addressed my question. If lodsys's end goal was to extract money from Apple, why didn't they sue Apple instead of the third parties?

Instead you seem to have changed the subject. Why did Apple let it get this far? What is it you wanted Apple to do? They made pretty much the only motion they could make. The one thing they could have done differently is earlier sought declaratory judgment that the license covered third parties, but there is difficulty perhaps with standing - the threats were directed not at Apple but at third parties. Personally, though, if it were me I would have suggested trying it, but the end result is essentially the same other than venue. Either way, Apple is going to argue this is a contract interpretation, not a patent infringement case. Either way Apple is involved and running the case. The only difference is location.

And as for whether he expected Apple to get involved, who knows? But given that Apple has already bought a license (thus making it difficult, but not impossible, for Apple to dispute patent validity), and given that he is asking for so little from each developer, yeah, I think he didn't expect Apple to get involved.

And you sir have not proven your points based upon the facts that 3/4 of iOS developers are making chump change that would make his grand licensing scheme a futile endeavor. Yet, you stick to that argument as I stick to mine. If you would read my posts above yours you would see I already answered your question(s) the same way in which you just answered mine. If they go after Apple it's a licensing dispute not a patent infringement suit. You will also read in my previous posts the reasons I believe they do not want to do that.

Perhaps reading my other posts would above yours would aide us along in progressing this argument further.

cmaier
Jun 12, 2011, 05:57 PM
And you sir have not proven your points based upon the facts that 3/4 of iOS developers are making chump change that would make his grand licensing scheme a futile endeavor. Yet, you stick to that argument as I stick to mine. If you would read my posts above yours you would see I already answered your question(s) the same way in which you just answered mine. If they go after Apple it's a licensing dispute not a patent infringement suit. You will also read in my previous posts the reasons I believe they do not want to do that.

Perhaps reading my other posts would above yours would aide us along in progressing this argument further.

I addressed your argument, but I'll do it again in more detail. The economics of the NPE business model rely on asking for licensing fees that are less than the cost of litigation, and making profit in volume. So you go after hundreds of small fish, and get a little bit from each, while spending $0 on lawyers. This happens all the time. Several cases like this are filed every day. A company sues 5-10 small fish in ED.Tex (often even mom-and-pop stores that sell infringing products). They get very little money in return, but it's enough to pay the lawyers a little contingency and to fund the next, bigger round of lawsuits. This continues until there are no more victims or until some big fish with an indemnity obligation decides to get involved.

This is the common case, and the default NPE business model.

It also corresponds (at least to an outside observer) to what Lodsys tried to do. From all outward appearances, they were following this exact model.

Then Apple got involved. This was probably not expected, since Apple had already taken a license, and since Apple explicitly disclaims any sort of indemnification obligation to the third party developers.

So, part one of my argument is the "if it quacks like a duck" theory. This also addresses your argument re: small fish.

Part two of my argument approaches it from the other side. You argue that Lodsys' TRUE target was apple. And I ask quite simply: if that's true, why didn't they sue Apple? I also point out at least two ways they could do that, despite the license agreement.

Your logic is akin to saying if a robber wants to mug me, he should beat up a couple of my business associates and wait for me to come after him. Despite the fact that I'm standing alone in a dark alley.

So part two of my argument is "if they wanted Apple's money, they knew where to find it." Also known as Occam's Razor.

While you could (and seem to have) argue that, despite Occam's Razor, suing the little guys could have been a Risk-like maneuver to get Apple involved, I have yet to see anyone suggest even the slightest reason for them to do it that way instead of just taking Apple to court. Heck, they could have sued Apple for indirect infringement by all the developers all at once, in one fell swoop (whether they win is another matter entirely).

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 06:33 PM
Part two of my argument approaches it from the other side. You argue that Lodsys' TRUE target was apple. And I ask quite simply: if that's true, why didn't they sue Apple? I also point out at least two ways they could do that, despite the license agreement.

Your logic is akin to saying if a robber wants to mug me, he should beat up a couple of my business associates and wait for me to come after him. Despite the fact that I'm standing alone in a dark alley.

So part two of my argument is "if they wanted Apple's money, they knew where to find it." Also known as Occam's Razor.

I stand by my point from a business perspective. You rely on a legal perspective. The legal perspective is much more black and white and the business perspective is grey.

He didn't want to get into an ongoing license dispute with Apple and chose Texas to fast track a patent infringement suit to get Apple's attention. What is it you do not understand about Apple's ability to drag out a license dispute bleeding him dry if he were to go after them directly?

No matter how much you want to make this black and white your logic is inept in the sense that he would not have the ability to make profit in volume because of the Apple model.

He would not have the time nor the funds to garner the correct legal entity information for all the listed developers on the app store.

Apple would block his attempts to at every turn and hold him up in litigation for everything and anything under the sun they could come up with keeping him from that information.

Developers would flee the platform in mass.

Infringement would cease to exist because not only would the infingers leave perspective developers would not come on board to replenish lost infringers.

The Apple model would be deemed too liable and the model would cease to exist as a whole.

It would have ramifications across the entire mobile industry.

Stop trying to compare this model against other metrics. Unless you can pull up examples of the effectiveness of the NPE model in walled gardens where the majority of the supposed infringers are free to cease infringement at any time. You have zero to compare this to in terms of case law and in terms of an effective model for garnering licensing income.

You're relying on your own assumptions to try to make legal arguments that in many ways are outside the scope of reality. This is new territory.

For you as a lawyer to sit there and say this man, this client, could be that egregiously stupid as to not realize that Apple was going to attempt to come onboard as a co-defendant makes me question your own judgment. If you can then make that assumption and say on top of that he was not provided guidance that would most likely be the case, makes me cringe.

cmaier
Jun 12, 2011, 07:13 PM
I stand by my point from a business perspective. You rely on a legal perspective. The legal perspective is much more black and white and the business perspective is grey.

He didn't want to get into an ongoing license dispute with Apple and chose Texas to fast track a patent infringement suit to get Apple's attention. What is it you do not understand about Apple's ability to drag out a license dispute bleeding him dry if he were to go after them directly?

No matter how much you want to make this black and white your logic is inept in the sense that he would not have the ability to make profit in volume because of the Apple model.

He would not have the time nor the funds to garner the correct legal entity information for all the listed developers on the app store.

Apple would block his attempts to at every turn and hold him up in litigation for everything and anything under the sun they could come up with keeping him from that information.

Developers would flee the platform in mass.

Infringement would cease to exist because not only would the infingers leave perspective developers would not come on board to replenish lost infringers.

The Apple model would be deemed too liable and the model would cease to exist as a whole.

It would have ramifications across the entire mobile industry.

Stop trying to compare this model against other metrics. Unless you can pull up examples of the effectiveness of the NPE model in walled gardens where the majority of the supposed infringers are free to cease infringement at any time. You have zero to compare this to in terms of case law and in terms of an effective model for garnering licensing income.

You're relying on your own assumptions to try to make legal arguments that in many ways are outside the scope of reality. This is new territory.

For you as a lawyer to sit there and say this man, this client, could be that egregiously stupid as to not realize that Apple was going to attempt to come onboard as a co-defendant makes me question your own judgment. If you can then make that assumption and say on top of that he was not provided guidance that would most likely be the case, makes me cringe.

Your argument seems to be that no one could be so stupid as to think Apple wouldn't get involved, therefore he intended for Apple to get involved.

I think it more likely that he thought Apple might get involved, but due to the license estoppel and lack of indemnity obligation figured they wouldn't, so he was willing to take the risk.

But if we accept "no one could be that stupid" as a principal of argument, why would anyone be so stupid to sue the developers instead of Apple if the goal was to get money from Apple?

I still don't see where you or anyone else has addressed that. This is not an argument:

He didn't want to get into an ongoing license dispute with Apple and chose Texas to fast track a patent infringement suit to get Apple's attention. What is it you do not understand about Apple's ability to drag out a license dispute bleeding him dry if he were to go after them directly?

It's not an argument because:

1) he IS in an ongoing license dispute with Apple. Lodsys suing third parties for patent infringement doesn't change that.
2) he could have been in Texas regardless of whether he sued for inducement of patent infringement or not. The track for inducement is identical to the track for direct infringement. An inducement case is prosecuted in exactly the same manner as the case against third party developers would be, using the same E.D.Tex Patent Local Rules.
3) he IS suing them directly, because they have intervened. They are going to have to fight Apple under EXACTLY the same conditions they would have had to fight Apple if they sued Apple directly. In other words, Lodsys is now in exactly the same position it would have been in if it had sued Apple in the first place. So why did they take the indirect route?

Businessman or lawyer (I'm both actually, thanks), the rules of logic apply.

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 07:31 PM
Your argument seems to be that no one could be so stupid as to think Apple wouldn't get involved, therefore he intended for Apple to get involved.

I think it more likely that he thought Apple might get involved, but due to the license estoppel and lack of indemnity obligation figured they wouldn't, so he was willing to take the risk.

But if we accept "no one could be that stupid" as a principal of argument, why would anyone be so stupid to sue the developers instead of Apple if the goal was to get money from Apple?

I still don't see where you or anyone else has addressed that. This is not an argument:



It's not an argument because:

1) he IS in an ongoing license dispute with Apple. Lodsys suing third parties for patent infringement doesn't change that.
2) he could have been in Texas regardless of whether he sued for inducement of patent infringement or not. The track for inducement is identical to the track for direct infringement. An inducement case is prosecuted in exactly the same manner as the case against third party developers would be, using the same E.D.Tex Patent Local Rules.
3) he IS suing them directly, because they have intervened. They are going to have to fight Apple under EXACTLY the same conditions they would have had to fight Apple if they sued Apple directly. In other words, Lodsys is now in exactly the same position it would have been in if it had sued Apple in the first place. So why did they take the indirect route?

Businessman or lawyer (I'm both actually, thanks), the rules of logic apply.

I know I read your bio once again. You're also an iPhone developer. Just a jack of all trades.

I still see no reality in your arguments. You still have yet to make the case on the logical level you so ascribe to attain for exactly how he has a viable business model. So if your assumptions are correct then try and make it with numbers not phrases and maybe I'll take it seriously.

Show me a similar model as it would even somewhat relate to how the Apple model works, knowing that the majority of developers are not accruing any real income. That requires the business hat, not the lawyer hat or developer hat.

If you are correct and can show me how he thought he was going to make more than passable income. You win - he had no idea Apple was going to get involved. Until then... well you already know.

cmaier
Jun 12, 2011, 07:44 PM
I know I read your bio once again. You're also an iPhone developer. Just a jack of all trades.

I still see no reality in your arguments. You still have yet to make the case on the logical level you so ascribe to attain for exactly how he has a viable business model. So if your assumptions are correct then try and make it with numbers not phrases and maybe I'll take it seriously.

Show me a similar model as it would even somewhat relate to how the Apple model works, knowing that the majority of developers are not accruing any real income. That requires the business hat, not the lawyer hat or developer hat.

If you are correct and can show me how he thought he was going to make more than passable income. You win - he had no idea Apple was going to get involved. Until then... well you already know.

Just so I'm clear - you want me to show you other NPE's whose business model is suing a multitude of small entities for "nuisance value" rather than suing large deep pocketed entities?

If so, google:

npe "nuisance value"

and

troll "nuisance value"

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 07:52 PM
Just so I'm clear - you want me to show you other NPE's whose business model is suing a multitude of small entities for "nuisance value" rather than suing large deep pocketed entities?

If so, google:

npe "nuisance value"

and

troll "nuisance value"

No, my friend I asked with a similar model to the the Apple system:

1.) Non easily attainable legal entity information and numbering in the six figure range consisting of sole proprietors, corporations, llc's etc.

2.) The disappearing factor not present in a brick and mortar establishment closing the doors is as simple as removing your application from the Apple walled garden environment with a couple mouse clicks

3.) The ability to keep track of disappearing or no longer infringing entities

4.) The cost to attain any perceivable income from international developers

5.) The costs for an ongoing legal campaign with Apple that could be never ending and on many fronts

6.) The cost of a multifront war once you start pissing off actual companies with expendable legal capital who just happen to also develop for iOS

Yeah, I thought so.

cmaier
Jun 12, 2011, 07:59 PM
No, my friend I asked with a similar model to the the Apple system:

1.) Non easily attainable legal entity information and numbering in the six figure range consisting of sole proprietors, corporations, llc's etc.

2.) The disappearing factor not present in a brick and mortar establishment closing the doors is as simple as removing your application from the Apple walled garden environment with a couple mouse clicks

3.) The ability to keep track of disappearing or no longer infringing entities

4.) The cost to attain any perceivable income from international developers

5.) The costs for an ongoing legal campaign with Apple that could be never ending and on many fronts

6.) The cost of a multifront war once you start pissing off actual companies with expendable legal capital who just happen to also develop for iOS

Yeah, I thought so.

I am not sure I understand all your list, or how they are relevant. But if google what I showed you you'll find many examples. SLightly different, but also relevant, are the copyright suits you doubtless read so much about where someone sues thousands of john does in order to get subpoenas for ISP's to give over names so that they can demand a couple grand each from a bunch of people sitting at home.


And I also don't see how your question is relevant. Lodsys could have sued Apple directly and been in exactly the same position it now finds itself. You cannot dispute that. So why didn't they just sue Apple directly instead of following the traditional NPE business model?

Answer: Because their intention was to avoid Apple and stick to the NPE business model.

Everything else you raise is just a smokescreen.

miografico
Jun 12, 2011, 08:24 PM
I am not sure I understand all your list, or how they are relevant. But if google what I showed you you'll find many examples. SLightly different, but also relevant, are the copyright suits you doubtless read so much about where someone sues thousands of john does in order to get subpoenas for ISP's to give over names so that they can demand a couple grand each from a bunch of people sitting at home.


And I also don't see how your question is relevant. Lodsys could have sued Apple directly and been in exactly the same position it now finds itself. You cannot dispute that. So why didn't they just sue Apple directly instead of following the traditional NPE business model?

Answer: Because their intention was to avoid Apple and stick to the NPE business model.

Everything else you raise is just a smokescreen.

:rolleyes: I cannot continue on any further than this. It's not me who is raising smokescreens. I gave you the opportunity to present an argument and you directed me to Google.

I answered your question half a dozen times. A licensing dispute would have drained them of their resources and by being the first to strike in a patent infringement case that Apple has to now try and wiggle into they have the upper-hand. (In their eyes not mine)

If you come up with a similar business case / real world example as it relates to mass suing in an environment such as this, with the parties being under the umbrella of one of the world's biggest corporations, and making money doing it while being sued by said corporation for something different every other day - let me know.

Yes, Apple indemnifies itself, but Apple is directly affected by the results of these meritless suits and therefore has to act to protect their ecosystem.

I will put it in simpler terms when you can present me with the profit potential of suing in mass when every target you choose as it relates to Apple developers, where each suit represents a potential legal reaction from Apple, and still make money doing so - have your secretary post that example.

I want a similar test case. It doesn't have to be spot on, but the variables and third party relationships have to be extremely similar.

Until then I consider my input in this thread closed.