Lodsys Offers Update on In App Purchase Patent Dispute, Claims Licensing Momentum

k995 said:

How can a rectangle be patented, yet most applaud that lawsuit.

Click to expand...

This again.

They did not patent 'the rectangle'; they fought on the trademark look and feel of the iPad, which is more than just the shape.

And in actual fact, they hadn't trademarked it, which is why they didn't win that round.

Before spouting off that nonsense from the Samsung legal bods, folk should read up on difference between a 'patent' and a 'trademark'.

Pakaku said:

How, exactly, can the idea of in-app purchases even be patented...?

Click to expand...

I can totally see how IAP could be patented. However, I also believe that when Apple rolled out this functionality for the iOS App Store, they fully believed that they had properly licensed this patent. Especially considering that Apple has plenty of lawyers on staff or retainer to look into such things.

I guess what I'm really saying is that Lodsys is probably entirely in the wrong to go after developers using IAP in iOS App Store apps, because whether they realized it or not, they already granted that license.

It's very easy to get ridiculous patents these days.

Just add the words "...for mobile phone application" to your idea.
It automatically becomes spanking new technology.

Example:
A wheel "...for mobile phone application". Approved!

So Apple already paid this patent troll's royalties and now they want developers to pay again? This seems unfair. Well at least they won't sue us app users us well. Doh! The courier guy just dropped by my house and it's a letter from Lodsys!

these people suck. go leech money off of someone else. they just want to cash in on apple. oh just give us 20 million dollars and we will go away.

Lod$y$

Time for a windfall profit tax on patent trolls. Hey, they do it to oil companies*....

(*In writing this, I realized that I actually have a higher of opinion of oil companies than Lodsys. )

Akarin said:

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).

Click to expand...

How about rounded corners? Did Steve invent it?

nagromme said:

A few things:
6. Tons of legitimate developers are hurt by this, and tons more are afraid to risk it.

Click to expand...

True, I'm a developer and I won't risk using in-app purchase until this is resolved. I only do free apps so far (and only 'legitimate' ones, whatever that means ), but when I will do paid ones I won't be charging much and I certainly don't have money to deal with patent trolls and the legal costs involved.

The patent doesn't cover all IAP from what I remember of it.

It covered the use of a button that links to a web portal (iTunes) that allows the user to download a paid version.

We should have a simple "use it or lose it" patent system to stop patent trolls like this. You have 12 months to bring your product to market from when you file the patent or you lose all rights to it. No selling patents, no assignments, etc.

MuppetGate said:

This again.

They did not patent 'the rectangle'; they fought on the trademark look and feel of the iPad, which is more than just the shape.

Click to expand...

US Design Patent 504889. That is the "Rectangle with rounded corners" patent. They lost that particular claim against the Galaxy Tab, which is what they had the injunction granted on earlier this year.

US Design Patent 618677 would be considered the same "Rectangle with rounded corners" patent but as it applies to the iPhone. A few Samsung handsets were found in infringement of this patent in the decision.

Read the entire claims and verdicts next time before you tell people what is and isn't "patented" by Apple.

----------

dljeffery said:

I guess what I'm really saying is that Lodsys is probably entirely in the wrong to go after developers using IAP in iOS App Store apps, because whether they realized it or not, they already granted that license.

Click to expand...

Exhaustion seems to be quite the popular argument with Apple patent lawyers. They used it against a few FRAND patents by Motorola and Samsung (saying that simply buying the chips from Qualcomm/Broadcom covered them) and in this Lodsys business. I'm starting to wonder if they even read their licensing agreements.

No one here can claim with certainty that the license Apple holds really covers anyone but Apple, as we don't have access to the licensing contract that both entities signed.

----------

Shaun said:

We should have a simple "use it or lose it" patent system to stop patent trolls like this. You have 12 months to bring your product to market from when you file the patent or you lose all rights to it. No selling patents, no assignments, etc.

Click to expand...

No, we should simply stop allowing software concepts to be patented. Software concepts are a dime a dozen and usually quite obvious once you run into the actual problem the concept solves and you try to solve it.

Put 30 programmers in a room, ask them all to solve a problem with software and most of the solutions will be the same, even if you prevent these guys from talking to each other.

Software is already protected by things like Copyright and Trademarks. Coming up with the concept or method to solve a problem is the easy part of software. Writing the code, testing it, implementing it in a solution and bringing it to market are the hard parts that actually take time and patents don't protect these.

I think it's time for Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc to come together and fight this with all they've got (or pool money to make them a buyout offer), and create an entity that holds all these ridiculous patents to let people "license" them free... it would be great for the companies (no more lawsuits) and great for consumers (lowering costs) but terrible for attorneys...

So...when this Lodsys company sues to protect it's patents, they're a "patent troll"...but when Apple sues every other cell phone manufacturer over the smallest thing, they're just "protecting their interests"?

Got it.

KentuckyHouse said:

So...when this Lodsys company sues to protect it's patents, they're a "patent troll"...but when Apple sues every other cell phone manufacturer over the smallest thing, they're just "protecting their interests"?

Got it.

Click to expand...

There is a difference. Lodsys does not make any kind of product or sell any kind of service. All they do is acquire patents from failing startups or simply from companies that aren't going to make anything out of it and then they sell licensing to these patents.

The usual tactic is to grab a patent for something that seems obvious, sit on it for a while or simply find a really old patent for doing something obvious "Over the Internet!" that tons of people do and then go after all the players once your "technology" is in widespread use.

That's patent trolling.

btbrossard said:

Just wait until my patent on breathing gets approved. All of you are going to be screwed!

Everyone can pay now to license this new technology or I'll be forced to sue.

Click to expand...

Go ahead. You can try to sue me till you're blue in the face. Or I am.

Notice how this patent troll went after the developers, whom they know don't have the financial backing to protect themselves.

Lodsys should have gone after Apple. After all, the App Store is an app and you purchase things from within the App Store app, right?

KnightWRX said:

There is a difference. Lodsys does not make any kind of product or sell any kind of service. All they do is acquire patents from failing startups or simply from companies that aren't going to make anything out of it and then they sell licensing to these patents.

The usual tactic is to grab a patent for something that seems obvious, sit on it for a while or simply find a really old patent for doing something obvious "Over the Internet!" that tons of people do and then go after all the players once your "technology" is in widespread use.

That's patent trolling.

Click to expand...

I agree - but that being said - these "loopholes" or whatever you want to call it are not really all that different from companies that take advantage of certain tax breaks by funneling their money around the world, etc.

There will always be companies that game the system - and all within what's permissible by law. As cliche as it sounds - it's easier for me to dislike the game than the player. Not that the player gives me any warm fuzzies either...

faroZ06 said:

I would complain about this being a bogus patent, but I also hate in-app purchases, so it's OK. I don't want to buy a game for $1 then have to buy every @#$%ing level in the game for $2 each.

Click to expand...

Yupp I agree. I would bet that the majority of people would rather pay for these games outright and not be nickle and dimed for "gold" "coins" or effin smurfberries!!!

sk1wbw said:

Notice how this patent troll went after the developers, whom they know don't have the financial backing to protect themselves.

Lodsys should have gone after Apple. After all, the App Store is an app and you purchase things from within the App Store app, right?

Click to expand...

Apple already has a license to this patent, if you remember (or even read) the initial stories about this situation. Lodsys can't really "go after Apple".

Pakaku said:

How, exactly, can the idea of in-app purchases even be patented...?

Click to expand...

Probably the same way apple tries to patent a rounded rectangle

I'm not sure how some of you come up with this idea that patent "trolls" as you call them are bad for the patent system. In reality they actually do more GOOD than harm.

The purpose of their business is to acquire patents and license them to as many companies who want to use it.

Example, Apple has slide to unlock patent, and they refuse to license it to any other competitor (Samsung, LG, HTC etc..), thus if a consumer wanted this feature they are stuck only buying Apple's products.

IF Lodsys had a patent of this type, they would proliferate it to any company willing to pay a licensing fee, thus helping spread technology vs. hoarding it, (like what Apple does). Giving the consumer better choices.

I can ASSURE you if Apple had patented in-ap purchasing, no other company would be able to use it. Apple has established it's record on HOARDING patents to themselves.

theBB said:

If Apple really believes that its licenses cover third party developers, it should indemnify all developers who use its in-app purchase APIs and it should take over their defense. Its ecosystem is under attack, it's got the necessary experience in patent litigation and it's got deep enough pockets.

Click to expand...

This is true...Apple has not stepped up so I suspect there is some doubt.

----------

ScottishCaptain said:

They shouldn't have paid it.

Lodsys shouldn't have gotten a single dime from anyone, anywhere, at any time. The fact that there are ****ing retards running around out there stupid enough to pay this "troll toll" is beyond pathetic. The idiots who have given Lodsys money are only validating Lodsys's behaviour as an acceptable business strategy.

This company needs to be driven into the ground. Along with every other ****ing company propagating this kind of ********. As far as I'm concerned, nothing good will ever come from giving Lodsys MORE money to "go away for a while".

Of course, the whole American patent system needs to be burned to the ground. The fact that I, as an indie developer, can sit here and genuinely come up with my own clever approach to a logical problem and be breaking the law and subject to thousands- millions of dollars in lawsuit costs and fees- is so astronomically stupid it makes me **** bricks of fear to even think about it.

Good job on stifling innovation, though. I can think of no better way to do it then to allow patent trolls like this to roam free.

-SC

Click to expand...

Come one...they pay to stay in business and avoid the legal fees to defend against Lodsys. Your crude assessment of them is off base.

Why isn't apple stepping up to defend these app developers? I am sure they would all fight if apple's deep pockets protected them directly.

By giving them 21 days to respond before filing suit is the same muscle tactic the mob has used for "protection" for a long long time.
It's extortion, pure and simple and needs to be dealt with, pronto. Kudos to Apple for trying to intervene.

mm1250 said:

The purpose of their business is to acquire patents and license them to as many companies who want to use it.

Click to expand...

Actually, the purpose is to sit on patents and wait for people to become dependant on a certain technology before coming out of the woodworks and asking for money for a license.

They aren't open about their patents, since that would promote people trying to circumvent the patents before going to market and being invested. Rather, they wait in the shadows and strike once a company has made such a massive investment that it has no choice to license or litigate.