This is true...Apple has not stepped up so I suspect there is some doubt.
...
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.
Wait... What?
Apple *has* stepped up. They've publicly stated that developers using the standard iOS In-App Purchase APIs (which are the only ones allowed for apps in the App Store) are covered by Apple's license of the patent in question. They've even gone so far as to get the required permission to intervene in the lawsuits.
Google also tried to intervene, but they don't require that Android developers use their solution, and (IIRC) they hadn't taken their own license to the patent anyway, so their ability to protect their developers is shakier.
Given the status of things, I suspect most of the 'licensing momentum' is on the part of Android developers who don't currently seem to have someone going to bat for them, or who didn't use the official In-App Purchase APIs for Android (if there are any).
----------
Uh ? Not for In-App purchases. For In-App purchases, Apple provides payment processing. You're in charge of distributing the content through your own infrastructure to customers, so bandwidth, website costs and distribution are all added costs on top of Apple's 30% fee for payment processing.
Apple really gouges the little guy for In-App purchases.
At the typical IAPs, the 30% Apple takes is *quite* competitive with what you'd get from a credit card company. Most small businesses get terms along the lines of 25-30 cents + 5%. On a $1 charge, that's more than the flat 30% Apple takes. Apple can do this because they deal with *huge* quantities of charges, and can therefore get a better rate from the credit card companies.
Sure, for more expensive IAPs, it's less of a deal up front, but it also means the developer doesn't have to deal with the expense of developing and maintaining their own solution.