Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 17, 2011, 11:25 AM   #201
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
I've just submitted a patent for a "Replace" button. It's similar to an 'upgrade' button, but it covers all buttons that delete the trial program and 'replace' it with a full version. That's not an upgrade. It's a switch.
Lodsys' patent is vague enough to already cover that. Your patent would thus be invalid.

Again, Lodsys' patent is, in part, about the interaction directly on the device with information sent to a central location.

"Did you like this app ?" <-- Feedback request from device
"If yes, touch the screen here to Upgrade/Replace/Install the full version" <-- gathering information
User touches. Devices sends information to App Store <-- Sending information based on feedback to a central location.

A lot of people are not understanding how broad this is. This is basically a patent on the shareware model through the Internet. If all the page said was "Did you like this app, see more at http://non-clickablewebsiteURL or mail us at for more", then it wouldn't infringe because the information is not collected and sent to a central location.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2011, 11:31 AM   #202
wjanoch
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montana
Patent #7,222,078 - December 10, 2003

Filed 4 years before the iPhone was released. Even this is a continuation of an earlier patent.

Inventors: Abelow; Daniel H. (Newton, MA)
Assignee: Ferrara Ethereal LLC (Las Vegas, NV)
Appl. No.: 10/734,102
Filed: December 10, 2003
Granted: May 22, 2007

Patent in question: #7,222,078


Methods and systems for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network

Abstract:
In an exemplary system, information is received at a central location from different units of a commodity. The information is generated from two-way local interactions between users of the different units of the commodity and a user interface in the different units of the commodity. The interactions elicit from respective users their perceptions of the commodity.
wjanoch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2011, 11:32 AM   #203
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Lodsys' patent is vague enough to already cover that. Your patent would thus be invalid.

Again, Lodsys' patent is, in part, about the interaction directly on the device with information sent to a central location.

"Did you like this app ?" <-- Feedback request from device
"If yes, touch the screen here to Upgrade/Replace/Install the full version" <-- gathering information
User touches. Devices sends information to App Store <-- Sending information based on feedback to a central location.

A lot of people are not understanding how broad this is. This is basically a patent on the shareware model through the Internet. If all the page said was "Did you like this app, see more at http://non-clickablewebsiteURL or mail us at for more", then it wouldn't infringe because the information is not collected and sent to a central location.
In other words, they have a patent on all Internet commerce involving demo software. And that's reasonable?

Are you telling me that Shareware never existed before this patent? I find that hard to believe. If the idea already existed, no patent should be granted and the existing patent should be invalidated (and Lodsys can pay back all that money they've collected). The fact it's sent over the Internet and not a BBS via Modem, etc. seems completely irrelevant to me. The internet is just a bigger network, after all. Can you patent mail-order through the mail? If it's UPS or FedEX is that a separate patent? In other words, the thing should not be patentable to begin with. It's too big, too broad and doesn't take Einstein to think of it (kind of like all that corporate name-grabbing early on with the Net. Gee, Pepsi might like to own Pepsi.com, so I think I'll buy it and then hold it for ransom. )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delirium39 View Post
But the hyperlink button is indeed one of the things they are sending out letters for. Very clearly stated by the developer:

"...We were told that the button that users click on to upgrade the app, or rather link to the full version on the app store was in breach of US patent no 7222078, we couldn't believe it, the upgrade button!?!"

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/13/...urchase-links/
I think people need to start banding together to create a people's lobbying group or something. It's ridiculous how much power private enterprise and corporations have these days. They've got people working for them all the way to the Supreme Court. Laws are no longer by and for the people, but by and for the rich people and corporations. Software patents need to be stopped. AFAIK, they have never been challenged in court as to their right or essence to exist and thus they continue onward. Of course, given the court system corruption in this country (you just lost ALL of your 4th Amendment rights recently regarding warrants, in case you haven't been watching with an 8-1 decision), it could be difficult to deal with either way. The first thing that needs changed is that lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Where is the accountability at? Apparently, you don't need to ratify Constitutional changes anymore. The Supreme Court just says that laws and words don't mean what they say and it's done.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch

Last edited by MagnusVonMagnum; May 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM.
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2011, 12:46 PM   #204
marksman
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Having been online long before these patents ever existed, I will say it was obvious and basic stuff long before the patent was ever filed.

The patent should have never been allowed.

Implementation by many people were in place long before the early 90s patent.

The whole thing is a joke...
marksman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2011, 06:46 PM   #205
iphonepiephone
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Greed, yet again, jumps on the cash cow and attempts to squeeze its' udders dry... what a joke!
iphonepiephone is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2011, 06:52 PM   #206
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
In other words, they have a patent on all Internet commerce involving demo software. And that's reasonable?

Are you telling me that Shareware never existed before this patent? I find that hard to believe. If the idea already existed, no patent should be granted and the existing patent should be invalidated (and Lodsys can pay back all that money they've collected). The fact it's sent over the Internet and not a BBS via Modem, etc. seems completely irrelevant to me. The internet is just a bigger network, after all. Can you patent mail-order through the mail? If it's UPS or FedEX is that a separate patent? In other words, the thing should not be patentable to begin with. It's too big, too broad and doesn't take Einstein to think of it (kind of like all that corporate name-grabbing early on with the Net. Gee, Pepsi might like to own Pepsi.com, so I think I'll buy it and then hold it for ransom. )
The patent was filled for somewhere around 1988 or so if I'm not mistaken. It was kept in the "review" process for about 12 years before being granted, thus it will have a very long life (the life of the patent is determined starting on the grant date, though the patent is valid since the filing date).

The first shareware title that I'm aware of (that did not violate this by not sending feedback directly to a central location since gaming was mostly offline back then, bar America Online or BBS doors) is Commander Keen by iD software. It was released in 1990, thus it isn't prior art and again it's non-infringing, so it's definitely not prior art at all.

Lodsys really found a "great" gold mine here.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2011, 07:41 PM   #207
cmaier
macrumors 604
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
The patent was filled for somewhere around 1988 or so if I'm not mistaken. It was kept in the "review" process for about 12 years before being granted, thus it will have a very long life (the life of the patent is determined starting on the grant date, though the patent is valid since the filing date).

The first shareware title that I'm aware of (that did not violate this by not sending feedback directly to a central location since gaming was mostly offline back then, bar America Online or BBS doors) is Commander Keen by iD software. It was released in 1990, thus it isn't prior art and again it's non-infringing, so it's definitely not prior art at all.

Lodsys really found a "great" gold mine here.
Your date calculations are wrong. Term is determined by filing date, not grant date. It's 20 years from the effective filing date, plus extra time due to certain delays in the uspto.
cmaier is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2011, 12:22 AM   #208
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
The patent was filled for somewhere around 1988 or so if I'm not mistaken. It was kept in the "review" process for about 12 years before being granted, thus it will have a very long life (the life of the patent is determined starting on the grant date, though the patent is valid since the filing date).

The first shareware title that I'm aware of (that did not violate this by not sending feedback directly to a central location since gaming was mostly offline back then, bar America Online or BBS doors) is Commander Keen by iD software. It was released in 1990, thus it isn't prior art and again it's non-infringing, so it's definitely not prior art at all.

Lodsys really found a "great" gold mine here.
My point was that Shareware had its start around 1982, well before this BS patent. Just because it was distributed via BBS and not the Internet (well it could have been via FTP, etc. for all I know; I couldn't get the Net until 1996 except through my University around 1992 when I first started going there.)

The real point is that who gives a flying frak HOW the information is collected or distributed? It still comes down to "try before you buy" which existed in some format or another for hundreds, maybe thousands of years! It's not an ORIGINAL idea/concept. Just because you play Monopoly on the Internet instead of a board game or a computer game on disk doesn't change the fact it's STILL Monopoly. THAT is the problem with this patent and software patents in general. They're just abstract ideas based on common ideas. That's a hell of a difference from a medical patent where time/research is spent finding a new formula for a drug that does something specific and never existed before. Shareware already existed before this patent and 'try before you buy' long before that. It's NOT patent-worthy.

Can I patent 1+1=2 for the Internet? I mean after all, we're talking about the Internet and not an old paper math book....
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2011, 04:31 AM   #209
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
My point was that Shareware had its start around 1982, well before this BS patent. Just because it was distributed via BBS and not the Internet (well it could have been via FTP, etc. for all I know; I couldn't get the Net until 1996 except through my University around 1992 when I first started going there.)
Your point is null and void in discussing this patent. A centralized location to which data gathered by the device is sent is required to be infringing and to be considered prior art.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
The real point is that who gives a flying frak HOW the information is collected or distributed?
The patent. This patent isn't about "try before you buy", it's about feedback from the device. It's basically about how the information is collected and distributed.

So that is the real point.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2011, 02:17 PM   #210
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Your point is null and void in discussing this patent. A centralized location to which data gathered by the device is sent is required to be infringing and to be considered prior art.
OK, then. So all people have to do is send their data to multiple non-centralized points instead and they won't be violating the patent even though the net effect is identical.

That reminds me of downloading a movie off a torrent, watching and deleting it versus going to the library and borrowing the same movie, watching it and returning it. The user gets the identical experience, but one is legal and one is not. Sorry, but it's still retarded because the net effect is the same on the user end (i.e. the law needs updated). Any business is going to want the money sent to the owner and so by default it would be 'centralized' and thus shouldn't be considered in a patent claim. Does it really matter whether it's sent to their house by mail or their computer by the Internet (or dial up or by floppy disk)? No, it doesn't matter one whit and shareware has always been centralized in that regard.

Quote:
The patent. This patent isn't about "try before you buy", it's about feedback from the device. It's basically about how the information is collected and distributed.

So that is the real point.
It's not feedback from the device either. It's feedback from the user that wants the full version of the program (i.e. it's the user that has to tell the device they want to buy it). Linking them to a store wouldn't be any more than a hyperlink, same as any link in any HTML page on earth. There is no difference and thus the patent is total BS. It combines hyperlink with database, both of which exist without the patent. It's therefore completely derivative and thus invalid, IMO. I'll say again. Software patents are stupid. Copyright is more than sufficient to protect true intellectual property (i.e. actual structure/code/language, not just abstract ideas of how to arrange the appearance of square buttons on the screen like Apple's iOS patents.... )
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lodsys Free to Continue Patent Threats Against Developers After Judge Tosses Apple's Legal Challenge MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 86 Oct 6, 2013 03:46 PM
Lodsys Agrees to Dismiss Patent Case Against Small Developer for a Charitable Donation MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 60 Aug 9, 2013 07:49 AM
Lodsys Publishes May 2011 Legal Response to Apple's Challenge MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 86 Apr 18, 2013 05:51 PM
Lodsys Targets Disney's 'Where's My Water?' and Others in New Round of Lawsuits Over In-App Purchasing MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 133 Apr 5, 2013 07:24 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC