Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:39 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Lodsys Publishes May 2011 Legal Response to Apple's Challenge




Over the past two years, a number of app developers have been contacted by patent holding firm Lodsys, demanding licenses for and in some cases filing suit over patents related to in-app purchasing and other functionalities. Earlier this month, Lodsys gained renewed attention when it began a new round of lawsuits targeting a number of developers large and small, including Disney and Gameloft.

At the time of Lodsys' initial effort to extract licenses from App Store developers, Apple's General Counsel Bruce Sewell sent a letter to Lodsys backing App Store developers and claiming that Apple was "undisputedly licensed" to Lodsys' patents through an arrangement that also protected app developers. Apple later requested and was given limited permission to intervene in at least some legal proceedings on behalf of targeted developers.

Lodsys had responded to Apple's claims of protection for developers with both public blog posts and a private legal response to Apple in May 2011, and Lodsys had encouraged Apple to publish that legal response, but Apple apparently declined to do so.

In response to requests from developers seeking more information from Lodsys on the basis for its claims, Lodsys today released a redacted version of its initial legal response to Apple, dated May 31, 2011. Redactions include the removal of specific discussion of Apple's license terms with Lodsys.

The letter outlines a number of arguments as to why developers are not covered by Apple's license with Lodsys, pointing to Apple's own developer program agreements that strictly limit its relationships with developers to agency appointments rather than any broader business agreements.
Quote:
First, you assert that, "[u]nder its license, Apple is entitled to offer these licensed products and services to its customers and business partners, who, in turn, have the right to use them." May 23 Letter at 1 (emphasis added). But, based on our review of [sic] publically available information, we understand that Apple expressly disclaims that App Makers are "business partners."
The response from Lodsys then proceeds to walk through six other arguments against Apple's claim that app developers are protected through Apple's license, including discussions of sublicensing, Apple's express disclaimer of any ownership interest in third-party apps, Apple's insistence that developers are solely responsible for liabilities related to their apps, and pass-through licensing issues.

Nearly two years later, the initial dispute remains unresolved, and Lodsys continues to contact developers in order to obtain licenses to its technologies with over 200 entities large and small now licensed for Lodsys' patents. Many smaller developers have found it simpler to agree to licenses representing small percentages of their revenue rather than face the prospect of lawsuits from Lodsys, but others remain in the crosshairs as Lodsys continues to stake its claims.

Article Link: Lodsys Publishes May 2011 Legal Response to Apple's Challenge
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:42 AM   #2
nepalisherpa
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: USA
What a "load" of ****! But, then again, I don't mind seeing all these "freemium" apps gone!
__________________
Macbook Air 11" 2013/i7/8GB RAM/250GB SSD
iPhone 6+ 64GB Space Gray
Nexus 7 2013 16GB
nepalisherpa is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:43 AM   #3
e-coli
macrumors 68000
 
e-coli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
So every developer who want to create an in-app purchase needs to license that right from Lodsys?

That's never going to work.
e-coli is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:44 AM   #4
trainwrecka
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Texas
Not a fan of I.A.P. and would rather it go away, so maybe developers can make non-IAP versions to get around this.
trainwrecka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:47 AM   #5
the8thark
macrumors 68040
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
I happen to agree. I would prefer to pay $20 upfront for an App instead of $1 as an in app purchase. Because most freemuim apps are pay to win games or crippled productivity apps that require the in app purchases to function fully.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:48 AM   #6
zin
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Lodsys is a patent holding company. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these exist purely to hold patents and make a business out of suing people who they claim to be in violation of their patents, whilst not necessarily being related in any way to the actual inventors or original filers of them, nor do they actually use the patents themselves to create products or deliver services?

It's things like this that clog up the justice system. There must be a backlog of patent cases just like this. The whole system needs dumping and redoing.
zin is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:48 AM   #7
iLilana
macrumors 6502a
 
iLilana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Dear apple,

please just buy these asshats
__________________
maxed bto 2013 27 inch iMac, iPad2 16gb, dual i7 11 inch late 2012 Macbook Air. iPad mini 32GB with LTE, iPad4 32gb.
iLilana is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:49 AM   #8
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
I enjoy using Apple's products.

Therefore, the developers did nothing wrong.




/s
iGrip is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:49 AM   #9
Ciclismo
macrumors 6502a
 
Ciclismo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Munich
Sounds like someone is trying to get rich off semantics.
__________________
Search before you post: MRoogle
Ciclismo is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:50 AM   #10
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 603
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
If anyone is at fault, it's either Apple or no one.

Apple provides ways of integrating IAP into developer apps. Going after developers for utilizing that is like going after customers for buying counterfeit products - they're the evidence of foul play, not the actual people doing illegal things.
ArtOfWarfare is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:51 AM   #11
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by zin View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these exist purely to hold patents and make a business out of suing people
You are wrong. They exist purely to hold patents and make a business out of licensing them.

Only when miscreants steal their property are they forced to sue anybody.

HTH.
iGrip is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:53 AM   #12
ThunderSkunk
macrumors 68000
 
ThunderSkunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Durango, Co
How lodsys works:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...patents-attack
ThunderSkunk is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:54 AM   #13
bmunge
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
You are wrong. They exist purely to hold patents and make a business out of licensing them.

Only when miscreants steal their property are they forced to sue anybody.

HTH.
They are manipulating a flaw in our judicial system for the sake of profit. They have no viable claim of ownership of the IAP system. It's a ridiculous scheme that seeks to exploit app developers.

Last edited by bmunge; Apr 16, 2013 at 11:55 AM. Reason: typo
bmunge is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:55 AM   #14
zin
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
You are wrong. They exist purely to hold patents and make a business out of licensing them.

Only when miscreants steal their property are they forced to sue anybody.

HTH.
That is a pretty crummy system. In the business of patents.

Surely the better way of expanding innovation is to ensure the patents are in the hands of those who are actually using them? If not, then any number of reasons can these patent-holding companies refuse to license their patents in the name of profit.
zin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:58 AM   #15
lilo777
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by zin View Post
Lodsys is a patent holding company. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these exist purely to hold patents and make a business out of suing people who they claim to be in violation of their patents, whilst not necessarily being related in any way to the actual inventors or original filers of them, nor do they actually use the patents themselves to create products or deliver services?

It's things like this that clog up the justice system. There must be a backlog of patent cases just like this. The whole system needs dumping and redoing.
I have to correct you. Patent holding companies do not "make a business out of suing people". They exist to advance innovation by rewarding the inventors. They collect patents and license them to tech companies. Just like, say, music record companies or publishing companies work with musicians and writers. Then of course, some companies use inventor ideas but do not want to pay. That's where lawsuits come into picture. Apple does the same to protect their intellectual property (but on much bigger scale than any "patent troll").
lilo777 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:59 AM   #16
dennno
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
IAP is Apple's biggest money making machine on the App store. There's no way that's going away.

These 'facts' are coming from Lodsys themselves, so it's likely taken out of context against Apple's arguments to make them look innocent in all of this.
dennno is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 12:04 PM   #17
lilo777
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennno View Post
IAP is Apple's biggest money making machine on the App store. There's no way that's going away.

These 'facts' are coming from Lodsys themselves, so it's likely taken out of context against Apple's arguments to make them look innocent in all of this.
Do you have any doubts that Apple does not treat app developers as their "business partners"?
lilo777 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 12:08 PM   #18
jowie
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London ish
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare View Post
Going after developers for utilizing that is like going after customers for buying counterfeit products - they're the evidence of foul play, not the actual people doing illegal things.
In the UK, the buying of counterfeit goods is technically committing a crime. It might not be right, but that's the way it is.
jowie is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 12:09 PM   #19
zin
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
I have to correct you. Patent holding companies do not "make a business out of suing people". They exist to advance innovation by rewarding the inventors...
But their website states that the inventor of the patents does not receive any revenue from licenses. The only entities receiving revenue are the new owners and Lodsys, which are not innovating using the patents as the inventor would have, but rather making profit purely from holding them. I don't understand how that is advancing innovation.

It seems to me as though Lodsys are merely acting as middlemen in the name of profit.
zin is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 12:10 PM   #20
krye
macrumors 68000
 
krye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
The patent system in this country needs to change to where you can't sue someone unless you actually have a product. Patents should protect products, not ideas. Anyone can come up with an idea.

The patent should exist to protect someone from spending $10 million on R&D, hashing out the bugs and then have someone outright copy it, skipping the R&D. That's bad. You shouldn't be able to patent a "time machine" and then sue the guys who actually invents it.
krye is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 12:12 PM   #21
bushido
macrumors 603
 
bushido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Espaņa y Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
You are wrong. They exist purely to hold patents and make a business out of licensing them.

Only when miscreants steal their property are they forced to sue anybody.

HTH.
in short they want money for something they didnt even invent themselves nor have they any use for. their business should be forbidden like it is in the EU among other places if im not mistaken
bushido is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 12:13 PM   #22
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: HEY!
After everything is said and done, the one thing I find most amazing is that someone actually managed to get a patent for buying and downloading software through an app. I mean how is that any different than, say, purchasing an app through the App Store? Or a browser? Or from a command line on a terminal? They're all using the same steps, the same protocols, the same wires, to achieve roughly the same end results. The only difference is the end target. Is it going to your OS, or an app? If it's an app, well, you owe us a license fee, because we have a patent for information being bought and downloaded while inside an app.

...as opposed to not being inside an app.

...cuz, you know, that makes all the difference in the world.
Renzatic is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 12:17 PM   #23
SmileyBlast!
macrumors 6502a
 
SmileyBlast!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
NPEs or Non Producing Entities should not be allowed to profit by suing. That is not a productive business. Suing for profit just seems like an abuse of the legal system.

should Lobby to pass a law to make this illegal.

Also, how hard would it be to change In App Purchases until it was somehow new, separate and different from the Patent that Lodsys holds?
SmileyBlast! is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 12:17 PM   #24
dennno
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
Do you have any doubts that Apple does not treat app developers as their "business partners"?
It doesn't really matter what I think in all of this. I'm a developer so I'm a bit biased regarding this. For me it's unfair for Apple to not have informed me about this, but I'm assuming they knew the license extended to devs, it's very obvious Lodsys is only out to get more money for doing absolutely nothing.

It's a case to settle between Apple and Lodsys. I think suing the bigger devs will force Apple to take swift action.
dennno is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 12:17 PM   #25
fraggot
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cox's Creek, KY
I'd be okay if they decided to remove in-app purchases. I hate downloading crippled apps that nickel and dime you for every feature.

Give me a price and let me buy the entire thing. Everyone always says they don't want to pay for $5-10 apps but after you purchase all the missing parts that's what you end up paying.

Also making you pay for features that I feel should be included. My biggest example is the recently release Status Board that makes you PAY to do TV Mirroring.
fraggot is offline   2 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
Apple Publishes Its 'iOS Human Interface Guidelines' on iBooks MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 36 May 15, 2014 01:12 PM
Apple Publishes Report Outlining Government Information Requests MacRumors Politics, Religion, Social Issues 103 Nov 13, 2013 07:24 AM
Lodsys Free to Continue Patent Threats Against Developers After Judge Tosses Apple's Legal Challenge MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 86 Oct 6, 2013 04:46 PM
[Limited-Free] Challenge & Response crazy1234 iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Aug 28, 2012 09:39 AM
[FREE] Challenge & Response crazy1234 iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Jul 27, 2012 11:59 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.

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

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