In the event Apple doesn't get to intervene, they could just buy Lodsys and end it right then and there.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lodsys Offers Update on In App Purchase Patent Dispute, Claims Licensing Momentum
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I could complain about this being a bogus patent, but I'm happy that the in-app purchases are being killed. A bunch of the apps made by small developers abuse them, and they're targeting small developers, so OK!
A few things:
1. In-app purchases are not being killed by this in any way.
2. In-app purchases can be very useful—and sometimes even the only practical business solution—for both users and developers. (Game sequels, expansion packs, pro upgrades/new features for already-complete apps, lite-to-full-versions with no second download, service subscriptions, etc. All things users want, and all things that developers can’t provide if they have starved to death.)
3. Abusers are the rare exception and the App Store already has increasing protections against them (starting with the password requirement and ending with good customer service to issue refunds and shut down offenders).
4. Small developers are not by nature abusers. They’re one of the best sources of software innovation and variety, in fact. Some larger-scale developers with tons of apps have actually been among the worst offenders on the App Store, for things like shovelware, ads, and pushing IAP ahead of gaming fun (Zynga—but even then the IAP is optional and you can simply delete the free game like I did).
5. Lodsys does not target abusers.
6. Tons of legitimate developers are hurt by this, and tons more are afraid to risk it.
So, not much to be happy about. (If there’s a particular developer who you feel is abusing the App Store, report them. You’ll likely even get your money back. If they haven’t violated any rules, just boycott them.)
The patent system needs a complete overhaul. They need to weed out all of these ripoff patents. This should apply to every company's patent portfolio, yes even Apples. Of course this will never happen under either of the two mainstream political parties. We need a viable third party. A party that combines the best points of the current two parties (if there are any good points) and some fresh ideas of it's own. I'm probably dreaming. Don't tell me Ron Paul...I said "Viable" third party.
----------
Yes, it fits the company's profile perfectly.
----------
Yes, it fits the company's profile perfectly.
If you have a read of the patents you'll see that they aren't about in app purchases. To be honest I'm not really sure what they are about as what they describe is extremely wooly and written in a very long winded ramble. Which of course was deliberate - it was designed as a catch all and they reckon they've caught in app purchases.
I don't get how the application of this patent to in app purchases hasn't been shot down with prior art. As an example; there were plenty of arcade games in the 80's in which you collected coins (or similar) which you then used to buy upgrades. How is that really any different from in app purchases?
These kind of patents are the worst for me. You might not agree with some of the patents Apple have, but at least they are generally based on actual research and development with a view to making something. They're not just shots in the dark that they hope will turn in to a gold mine someday.
If you see no fault here, this is a good story on some patent trolls that will get your blood boiling.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
There are very few people I wish ill upon, LodSys employees are some of those people.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
There are very few people I wish ill upon, LodSys employees are some of those people.
Well, for starters the patent office could hire people that actually have domain knowledge on the subjects being patented. In addition, if the patent examiners don't understand the patent application, then it should be rejected outright. How about another one that software should not be patentable ever because the two concepts are an incredibly bad fit. A third idea is that any idea that has already appeared in the scientific literature should not be patentable. And related to this previous idea, it should not require a court hearing to invalidate a patent. I should be able to supply a copy of a journal article to the patent office that demonstrates that the idea was already out there and implemented, and that should be good enough. The list goes on of extremely easy things that could be done to clean out the patent system.
Not exactly - Apple is not actually using Lodsys' technology. Developing an "in house solution" wouldn't change anything, because Apple already implemented the in-app purchase system in-house. It's just that Lodsys happens to own a very general patent which describes a system somewhat like the one Apple is using - one which allows developers to charge inside their applications for upgrades. Because Lodsys owns this patent, Apple had to pay them to license it in order to offer in-app purchases. But Lodsys is arguing that the developers should also pay them, which is really ridiculous. And the way they are going about it - pushing small developers into licensing because the developers do not have the resources to defend themselves - is just terrible. Anyway, even if you understood this already, maybe this recap will help someone.
I guess you can patent a phone with rounded corners and a bouncing scrolling mechanism than you can patent in-app purchasing..
what a ridicules world we living in!
Scum
This guy...Dan Abelow is a piece of scum...i looked at his website, full of "i'm an inventor, bla bla bla"... This guy sickens me...further into his website, press releases on 2 settlements with other companies...this guy is just an infectious tumor on the creative community, not creating anythng of his own..just settling out of lawsuits...how can we let this go on.....
Oh and by the way, his website talks about "inventng ways of website usability" bla bla...if you look at the top, there are 5 or 6 main tabs you can click on...im surprised no one has sued HIM for this kind of infringement...seems similar to Apple's menus on top (iPad, iPhone, etc)
This guy...Dan Abelow is a piece of scum...i looked at his website, full of "i'm an inventor, bla bla bla"... This guy sickens me...further into his website, press releases on 2 settlements with other companies...this guy is just an infectious tumor on the creative community, not creating anythng of his own..just settling out of lawsuits...how can we let this go on.....
Oh and by the way, his website talks about "inventng ways of website usability" bla bla...if you look at the top, there are 5 or 6 main tabs you can click on...im surprised no one has sued HIM for this kind of infringement...seems similar to Apple's menus on top (iPad, iPhone, etc)
I'm not a fan of software patents.
That said, the Lodsys fee (0.575% of the developer's profit) is peanuts compared to what Apple and the government take.
If a developer sells $1,000 worth of in-app purchases, then about...
.
That said, the Lodsys fee (0.575% of the developer's profit) is peanuts compared to what Apple and the government take.
If a developer sells $1,000 worth of in-app purchases, then about...
- $300 goes to Apple.
- $150 goes to taxes.
- $4 goes to Lodsys.
.
Last edited:
My thoughts exactly as I was reading the article. As a developer, I fail to understand how this is 'patentable'. Come on... buying stuff from within an app exists since waaay before App Store (micro payment in MMO's, for example).
The apps I am referring to are those kinds you download that are free or cheap, but then you realize that you can hardly use the app for anything without more in-app purchases. Apple should regulate what you can and can't use in-app purchasing for. Lite and full versions should be separate apps.
+1 for this response. I was just thinking about apples patent on this, which was BS in the first place. Got to laugh at the fanboys crying when apple gets sued for patent infringement but when they do it to others for something as simple as rounded edges, you back apple. If the patent office backed lodsys, then pay up. Yes, the patent system is totally in shambles. But until someone comes up with a better system that's fair to all players, this crap will continue.
----------
+2
Slide to unlock is a really specific design feature. There are plenty of ways to make an unlocking mechanism. Patenting in-app purchases, on the other hand, is BS because it's been done in the past, and it's a really vague idea.
Yeah, but at least Apple makes use of their own patents and creates nice products with them.
I agree with you, it is a small amount, but it's a much larger principle, which, unfortunately, many small devs cannot afford to uphold. But legitimizing this further abuse of the patent system (Lodsys is attempting to make this a fait accompli by bullying smaller devs to give in, demonstrating that those devs "agree" that this patent troll's claims are valid) only further encourages this and other trolls and scares off potential developers. And why would Apple pay to license this "technology" from Lodsys if not for the developers' toolkit?
What would happen if the courts sided with Lodsys and threw out patent exhaustion? Development toolkits would be useless, and developers would have to do all of the patent research and rights purchasing on their own. This would essentially remove all but the largest developers from the development pool.
So much for creativity and innovation.
Last edited:
Lodsys pissing off a lot of people. Messing with a rich company I am surprised they haven't been assassinated yet.
----------
yeh ok rectangle. Lets call it that shall we? I think the iPad is a little more than just a sharp cornered block mate.
----------
Their logo doesn't have to make their income fortunately enough for them.
----------
yeh ok rectangle. Lets call it that shall we? I think the iPad is a little more than just a sharp cornered block mate.
----------
Their logo doesn't have to make their income fortunately enough for them.