Microsoft too? They make a smart phone OS???
WP7 is head and shoulders above Android.
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 Also Targeting Android Developers with Patent Infringement Claims
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
WP7 is head and shoulders above Android.
I think so too.
It's not really that different, but implications for Android and iOS are entirely different and there may be a cost now.
Google will definitely step in; now that Apple already has. They don't have a choice. They might lose but they are definitely going to show interest to developer's request void any future lawsuits.
Well... you can tell that Lodsys has some huge balls of steel... Going against Apple and Google at the same time... I bet they are soon also targeting Windows Phone developers...
But in other ways... I think they want to be bought up for a good price... Like this they can force out more money for their company.
Or they can raise the price for the patent so that every developer is under the hood of their platform owners.
Apple has already paid them for licensing... they have already said all thier developers are covered by this. Google and MS??
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
I'm sure Lodsys originally said that Apple, Microsoft and Google are licenced to use this patent.
foodog said:Well... you can tell that Lodsys has some huge balls of steel... Going against Apple and Google at the same time... I bet they are soon also targeting Windows Phone developers...
But in other ways... I think they want to be bought up for a good price... Like this they can force out more money for their company.
Or they can raise the price for the patent so that every developer is under the hood of their platform owners.
Apple has already paid them for licensing... they have already said all thier developers are covered by this. Google and MS??
I'm sure Lodsys originally said that Apple, Microsoft and Google are licenced to use this patent.
Infringment does not depend only on in-app purchases. Developers who were simply linking back to their full app on the App Store from their lite-app also received letters.
This is larger than in-app purchases/in-app billing.
Anyway, am I the only one who read the part in the summary that mentionned Lodsys does not agree with Apple's assertion that their license covers developers ?
This I think is the biggest news item in this story. This means Lodsys will eventually sue a developer directly and that poor soul is going to have to bear the brunt of the assault and pay legal costs to either fight it or will have to license the patent.
They aren't really. If the license Google/Apple have for the patent is indeed valid and covers developers, it just means if you want to offer "upgrades" in your app, you now have to do so using the approved methods only (in-app billing/in-app purchases). You can't use outside methods anymore (like putting up a free Lite app on the App Store and just putting up a link to the full app on a screen in your application).
Same applies to both Android and iOS.
WTF!? Completely retarded.
Wouldn't Shareware from the 90s which reference the maker's website constitute as prior art then? As far as I can see the first Lodsys patent was granted in 1997? Quake Shareware referenced the full version on the ID website for purchase in 1996.
http://web.archive.org/web/19961220090258/http://www.idsoftware.com/shopping/smauls.html
Last edited:
Lol. Thanks for the Friday laugh.
Hilariously ironic that WP7, whose biggest selling point should be integration with already used MS enterprise apps, is not enterprise ready...
Its more "enterprise ready" (Biggest buzzword in the world) than Android, and this is coming for a person who specializes in Linux infrastructure.
Last edited:
Reference and linking back are not the same thing. Lodsys' patent was applied for in 1988 I think, even though it was granted in 1997. Prior art would have to be before then.
Also a big part of the patent is collecting "feedback" and sending it back to a central source (linking back to the app store, which registers the user's click after reading the question "Did you like this app ?"). Shareware that only displayed a page with information does not constitute prior art as it lacks the "gathering information" and "sending it back to a central location" parts of the patent.
The earliest confirmed number I can find is applied for in 1997 and published in 1999, this is from the patents that Lodsys list on their website and searching Daniel H Abelow in patent databases.
The patents are written really ambiguously. Nouns are "the invention" and the like. Some dirtbag lawyer could word it so something as trivial as logs could be a central source.
Hey, badly written legal documents deserve a really bad interpretation.
Search harder, someone posted the information in another thread. Basically the patent was filed and then amended for quite some time before being actually granted. It is a very old patent.
Read the abstract. It's not so ambiguous. It has to be over a network, so no, a telephone log can't be a central source. This is really a "do something we've all done before, OVER THE INTERNET!" type patent that was filed in the darker days of the Internet (late 80s, early 90s).
The patents are written really ambiguously. Nouns are "the invention" and the like. Some dirtbag lawyer could word it so something as trivial as logs could be a central source.
Hey, badly written legal documents deserve a really bad interpretation.
Hmm, are you talking as a lawyer now, or just as someone who thinks it all reads a bit funny? I think that affects what value to place on your commentary. Writing patent applications isn't the same as writing a piece for Engadget you know?
No, it could also be a BBS, but who uses those anymore ?
The individual claims further clarify that this requires electronic transfer.
No, it could also be a BBS, but who uses those anymore ?
The individual claims further clarify that this requires electronic transfer.
It does not seem to make a distinction between digital and analog electronics for the communication method, that provides a lot of wriggle room for more terrible wording and half arsed internet arguments over nothing.
On a further note, are we really arguing over whether a patent that is being used for blatant trolling is ambiguous in wording?
This. Is. MacRumors. Most of the commentary is going to be meaningless beyond actual lawyers, even then a lot of the known lawyers here aren't posting or are just giving personal opinions.
Last edited:
I wonder does Lodsys know about the why the Feds went after the United Shoe Machinery Company for patent abuse during the first half of the 20th Century.
Nodsys could be charged with possible restraint of trade based on the Sherman and/or Clayton Antitrust Acts.
Nodsys could be charged with possible restraint of trade based on the Sherman and/or Clayton Antitrust Acts.
Wow, now Lodsys just put another 100 top lawyers against them.
This is like gambling for these guys. Right now they are "all in"
This is like gambling for these guys. Right now they are "all in"
What if a developer is using the API's to sell an app outside Android Marketplace?
You can't use In-App Billing outside the Android Market. So I don't quite get your point. The situations are analogous.
I hope to see a clarification by courts regarding this soon!
Things should be clear about whether we developers have something to worry about or not...
Things should be clear about whether we developers have something to worry about or not...
I can't wait to see how this all pans out. I hope Google and Apple (and Microsoft since I'm sure they are next) bankrupt the **** out of Lodsys.
Apple and then Google? If the government made mobile applications wherein you could purchase features within the app, then Lodsys could take on them as well. This company must be nothing but lawyers.