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 Publishes May 2011 Legal Response to Apple's Challenge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Does that mean that Apple could move all the App Store servers to Europe and they would be out of Jurisdiction to US Courts?
I'm all for giving credit where credit is due. But the issue is that this is a ridiculously stupid patent. It is essentially a patent on clicking a button to purchase a digital commodity.
The real issue is that software patents like these get issued in the first place. They should require an actual functioning implementation and not just an idea.
This company deserves to go bankrupt.
Seriously suing developers? Thats like suing people who use a computer to make a living because the manufacturer of the computer had a patent dispute. You should never be allowed to sue the user of something.
Seriously suing developers? Thats like suing people who use a computer to make a living because the manufacturer of the computer had a patent dispute. You should never be allowed to sue the user of something.
I concur. In its current form, patent system started impeding the progress rather than accelerate it.
well definitely against pay to win, but the reason I use in-app to unlock the full game is so reviews and URLs all point to the same app. I used to do separate lite, free and its a pain. Not only that, but the end user has to return to the app store and download a new app for the full experience.
Def agree that the insane monetizing stragegy of stuff like the simpsons drives me crazy.
Let's get this right
In January 2001 Apple releases a software application (an app) called iTunes.
This app allows you to rip your cds and play them on your computer.
Nine months later Apple introduce the iPod. You can now use the iTunes app to synch content to your iPod.
In April 2003 Apple introduced the iTunes Store. Now you can use the iTunes app to purchase content from the iTunes Store. In fact you can ONLY purhcase content from the iTunes Store from within the iTunes app, there is no web based process, no high street presence, no other app had access to purchase content from this store.
So by now Apple have the app, the hardware to run the app on, the hardware the app can synch content to and the store from which you can purchase content - FROM WITHIN THE APP
At this point, in April 2003, Lodys have what ???
And now in April 2013 Lodsys have what ???
No app, no hardware for it to run on, no devices to consume the content, no store to sell content from, no deals in place with publishers to licence content from.
NOTHING.
And they want everyone else to pay them for THEIR BRILLIANT IDEAS!!!!
In January 2001 Apple releases a software application (an app) called iTunes.
This app allows you to rip your cds and play them on your computer.
Nine months later Apple introduce the iPod. You can now use the iTunes app to synch content to your iPod.
In April 2003 Apple introduced the iTunes Store. Now you can use the iTunes app to purchase content from the iTunes Store. In fact you can ONLY purhcase content from the iTunes Store from within the iTunes app, there is no web based process, no high street presence, no other app had access to purchase content from this store.
So by now Apple have the app, the hardware to run the app on, the hardware the app can synch content to and the store from which you can purchase content - FROM WITHIN THE APP
At this point, in April 2003, Lodys have what ???
And now in April 2013 Lodsys have what ???
No app, no hardware for it to run on, no devices to consume the content, no store to sell content from, no deals in place with publishers to licence content from.
NOTHING.
And they want everyone else to pay them for THEIR BRILLIANT IDEAS!!!!
Everybody complained about the lack of trialware in the AppStore and IAP was the solution.
You get to try before your buy and buy and buy.
I guess you'r saying let there be one price and once charge for all the add-ons period.
No, Lodsys is a shell company which shares an address (down to the suite number) with a number of other shell companies in a small office in Marshall, Texas. They have no one actively marketing these patents. It's just a lawsuit factory.
I would suggest you try reading one of their patents (you can find them listed in their entry in wikipedia), then justify your use of the word "miscreant".
More accurately you are a patent troll if I don't like you. If I like you then it's OK to patent things you will never make just so you can sue others.
For instance if you like Apple they are always the victim: whether they are the ones stealing someone else's IP or the one's being stolen from.
If Apple gets a patent then they have a legal right to destroy anyone infringing on their patent. However, if Apple uses someone else's patent then the person that owns the patent is evil for thinking of it first. Heck Apple probably thought of it first but that evil other company snuck into Steve Jobs head and stole the idea before Apple engineers were able to extract it from Steve's lifeless brain matter.
So it comes down to Apple not wanting to classify developers as "business partners". That's fine. Do they pay for the developer program or own an iOS product? Cool they are now customers and are once again protected under the terms of their license agreement.
This is an apple legal team screw up and should be fixed but I have a hard time believing it's that vague.
This is an apple legal team screw up and should be fixed but I have a hard time believing it's that vague.
They don't have to. When the patent was applied for many years ago, prior art was found that matched the invention, except that the product and the server belonged to different companies. So "company X sends data to Apple's servers" falls under this prior art and is not covered by the patent. The only situations covered by the patent (once prior art is removed) are when Apple apps send data to Apple's server, or if Google apps sent data to Google's servers and so on.
That of course doesn't stop Lodsys from suing. The reason why some people pay is not because they are afraid of losing a lawsuit, the reason is that they are afraid winning a lawsuit is more expensive than paying off Lodsys.
But the entire argument is nuts because Apple has a contract with Lodsys in which they paid Lodsys to make a system of online payments available to Apps through Apple's App Store.
Really? Do you know how much patent holding companies pay to "reward" the inventors?
Musicians and writers get royalties. However small a percentage, they get paid when their work gets used (with some notable exceptions, but that's a digression).
If you know of any case where an inventor gets amply rewarded by a patent holding company, in any proportion to the millions reaped from suing actual, innovative tech companies of all sizes, please cite one. You won't find such a case, because it doesn't exist. If it did, you could be assured that Intellectual Ventures would be holding them up as a poster child. Reference the This American Life story for a reality check.
Are you associated with IV or one of its numerous shell entities?
Is there a justice and crime in the world that makes sense anymore? Mass murdering children gets you 20 years in Sweden, being phished is a crime in the UK, rape gets you nothing in Canada, one minor sexually humiliating another gets them the rest of their childhood behind bars, and a minor taking pictures of themselves and selling them has them marked as a child molester for life.
I can't remember the last time I heard about any punishment making sense. I need to go start a country in Antartica or something where we can have a little bit of common sense in the government. Keeping things simple will be key.
App developers are clearly customers. They are customers of an app service arrangement that distributes their product, in some cases entirely for free, and in other cases for a 30% fee. The App developers are clearly customers. No doubt or confusion.demand letter quote said:
Rocketman
If the inventor didn't feel he was getting rewarded by selling his patent then he probably shouldn't have sold it.
More accurately you are a patent troll if I don't like you. If I like you then it's OK to patent things you will never make just so you can sue others.
For instance if you like Apple they are always the victim: whether they are the ones stealing someone else's IP or the one's being stolen from.
If Apple gets a patent then they have a legal right to destroy anyone infringing on their patent. However, if Apple uses someone else's patent then the person that owns the patent is evil for thinking of it first. Heck Apple probably thought of it first but that evil other company snuck into Steve Jobs head and stole the idea before Apple engineers were able to extract it from Steve's lifeless brain matter.
Not accurate. Biased, prejudiced, and ignorant of how Apple (and their competitors) use patents.
Apple (and Samsung, Google, etc.) use patents as competitive weapons. They do not go after "anyone". They go after their direct competitors, either to slow them down, or as a defensive weapon to prevent their competitors from doing the same to them.
Patent trolls exist to extract as much money out of the system. They are essentially a tax on anyone trying to do business. Sometimes they do own something of real value; but often they have nothing but a vague claim in which to effect legal extortion.
You may not approve either; but they are totally different.
I agree. I know the company thinks by making it an IAP, those that don't need the feature get a cheaper version of the app. I would rather have 2 apps, one full, one not.
If the App Store goes under (crazier things have happened), I'll lose all my IAP's if I ever try installing the apps on a new device.
The cloud cripples long-term purchases.
Your argument does nothing to support the patent troll argument that their businesses encourage innovation. An inventor develops an invention; patents it; then tries to start a business. That's generally how it works. When they fail, they sell the patent in order to salvage something from their efforts. It's generally a pittance, and not an amount that would have induced them to invent something had they known in advance that that was going to be the eventual reward.
The goal of the patent system is not to reward anyone; that's the job of the free market. The patent system is intended to encourage innovation. Innovation is created at two stages: by the developer of the "idea", and the development of a useful product from the idea. Patent trolls do little to help the creation of ideas; and are detrimental to development of anything that exploits the idea. Patent trolls work against the goal of the patent system.
No time for Patent Monkeys
If these clowns actually created anything then I would feel for them, that's what Patents are for - stopping others stealing your intellectual property when you've worked hard to get something to market. Holding patents just so others have to license it with no intention of ever bringing anything to market doesn't benefit the consumer or the tech industry either. I think we need a 'use it or loose it' ruling on Patents.
If these clowns actually created anything then I would feel for them, that's what Patents are for - stopping others stealing your intellectual property when you've worked hard to get something to market. Holding patents just so others have to license it with no intention of ever bringing anything to market doesn't benefit the consumer or the tech industry either. I think we need a 'use it or loose it' ruling on Patents.
Who are the miscreants here? Apple? They've licensed the patent. iOS app developers? Can you sincerely call them miscreants for using an Apple SDK in good faith?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in a capitalist society and under the current system a patent holding company is a viable business.