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

[MacinDoc]

Originally Posted by btbrossard

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.

Originally Posted by -Hackintosh-

Actually laughed out loud at this..... and then felt sad thinking that this is something the patent office might actually grant.

Too late, there's already prior art: see "method of conscious control of breathing".

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

Does not say what is needed for this "Quota" system. It could simply be how many patents they process regardless if accepted or rejected.

Yes, it's quantity of accepted or rejected, but apparently rejections now require more backing documentation than before, so acceptance becomes an easier choice than it was.

Here's a summary of a recent document on how Patent Examiners are internally evaluated:

• 10% on how they interact with the customers.
• 20% on how they handle their workflow (related to quantity).
• 35% on how much they produce (quantity).
• 35% on the quality of their output (research and patentability).

The last item... quality... used to be 40% of their performance review until a couple of years ago.

[skunnykart]

Originally Posted by faroZ06

Slide to unlock is a really specific design feature. There are plenty of ways to make an unlocking mechanism. Patenting in-app purchases, on the other hand, is BS because it's been done in the past, and it's a really vague idea.

Slide/swipe to unlock has been done before (do some research) but that doesn't stop Apple for patenting it and calling it innovation.

[faroZ06]

Originally Posted by skunnykart

Slide/swipe to unlock has been done before (do some research) but that doesn't stop Apple for patenting it and calling it innovation.

Apple can patent their specific design for slide to unlock. That is, an arrow on the left side that you drag to the right over "slide to unlock" text.

Here is Apple's patent. I think it should be a little more specific, but it's not overly vague:

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by faroZ06

Apple can patent their specific design for slide to unlock. That is, an arrow on the left side that you drag to the right over "slide to unlock" text.

The problem is that they didn't patent a particular ornamental DESIGN.

They patented the basic concept of sliding to unlock with a visual aid:

1. A method of controlling an electronic device with a touch-sensitive display, comprising: detecting contact with the touch-sensitive display while the device is in a user-interface lock state; moving an image corresponding to a user-interface unlock state of the device in accordance with the contact; transitioning the device to the user-interface unlock state if the detected contact corresponds to a predefined gesture; and maintaining the device in the user-interface lock state if the detected contact does not correspond to the predefined gesture.

In other words, a virtual on-off switch, with or without spring loading.

Not only had unlock gestures had been in use for a decade at the time of the patent application, but this particular type of unlock was all around us in the real world.



Moreover, industrial GUIs had been using virtual on-off slide switches for a very long time. The lower image above came from the decision by a Dutch judge in 2011 that dismissed Apple's claims as incredibly obvious even to him, much less to anyone experienced in the art.

And that's the problem, I think. It seems extremely doubtful that patent examiners had much, if any, experience developing with touch systems. There should be a peer review board.

[faroZ06]

Originally Posted by kdarling

The problem is that they didn't patent a particular ornamental DESIGN.

They patented the basic concept of sliding to unlock with a visual aid:

1. A method of controlling an electronic device with a touch-sensitive display, comprising: detecting contact with the touch-sensitive display while the device is in a user-interface lock state; moving an image corresponding to a user-interface unlock state of the device in accordance with the contact; transitioning the device to the user-interface unlock state if the detected contact corresponds to a predefined gesture; and maintaining the device in the user-interface lock state if the detected contact does not correspond to the predefined gesture.

Ah, in that case, that patent is too vague to have been granted for Apple. Apple should not hold that patent but a more specific one. I still think that using the same design as Apple should be considered copying and is reasonable grounds for lawsuit. If something has that same design of sliding a rectangle to the right over "slide to unlock" text, that's clearly taken from iOS.

[HiRez]

My idea to get around this is to just re-word the contract so that the developer is "selling" their app to Apple (maybe this is an option the dev could choose if they want to use IAP, and there could also be an option for Apple to "sell" the app back to the developer).

That way, instead of "Apple is taking 30% of each dollar the developer makes", it changes to "Apple buys product from developer, sells it to customer, then pays a 70% royalty to the developer." In other words, it's now Apple selling (instead of reselling) the product, and Apple is already indemnified.

Now, this would not necessarily stop Lodsys from suing, but it has some important implications. It makes it easier to argue that they need to primarily be suing Apple instead of individual developers. And it makes it easier for Apple to claim they have a right to intervene in any lawsuit not directed at them. Obviously, everyone would prefer it's Apple bringing its considerable resources to bear on the problem than individual developers who can not afford the time or cost of lawsuits.