Apple 'Actively Investigating' Lodsys Patent Claims as More Developers Hit

[MacRumors]

According to The Guardian, Apple is "actively investigating" the recent controversy that has seen patent holding firm Lodsys targeting small iOS developers with notices of patent infringement and giving them 21 days to purchase licenses for technology related to in app purchase and upgrade links within apps. The company is also said to be preparing a response to be issued later this week.

Apple's legal department is understood to be "actively investigating" claims by Lodsys, a patent holding company based in Texas, to have a claim against iPhone and iPad developers who use in-app purchase systems.

So far Lodsys has served papers on about a dozen iOS developers who it says are infringing its patent 10/732,102, which it bought in 2004 from the inventor, who filed it in the 1990s, covering user interaction over a network.

Apple is not expected to respond to the claims, which have been passed to it by affected developers, until later this week.

At least one of the affected developers had reached out to Apple's legal department immediately after receiving the notice, seeking advice on how to respond to the claims and whether Apple had any position on the situation. It has been unclear, however, whether Apple would take up an active role on the issue, given Lodsys' claims that Apple, along with Google and Microsoft, already has a license for the technology for its own apps.

Word of Apple's investigation into the matter comes as Lodsys continues to target developers with notices, as Talos Tsui of The Iconfactory sent out a Tweet a short time ago sharing that his company has just been "Lodsysed". It is unclear, however, whether this is a fresh batch of notices or if stragglers from the original round of mailings are still coming through.

Article Link: Apple 'Actively Investigating' Lodsys Patent Claims as More Developers Hit

 

[Dr McKay]

Apple will stand up for their developers, the copyright claim is pure bull, there are ideas that just shouldn't be allowed to be copyrighted.

 

[nwcs]

This will be interesting. We know for certain that Apple can out-spend them. And probably have better lawyers, too. I wonder if they'll argue that their license obviates the need for individual developers to need a license?

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

This is good to read. Nice to hear that Apple are looking to support developers too.

 

[ComputersaysNo]

O lord, somebody woke the kraken.

Release the kraken!

 

[iekozz]

Apple will stand up for their developers, the copyright claim is pure bull, there are ideas that just shouldn't be allowed to be copyrighted.

Apple didn't have to deal with this sort of claim yet. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I know Google had a similar issue not too long ago where it aided their developers. However, Google is a open company and Apple is not.

 

[cmaier]

Apple will stand up for their developers, the copyright claim is pure bull, there are ideas that just shouldn't be allowed to be copyrighted.

This is a patent. Not copyright. And as apple already licensed the patent, they will be hard pressed to seek a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid (possible now due to a recent legal decision, but not easy). Best bet is they pay lodsys to go away, and pay them extra not to settle with google or ms (to the extent antitrust laws let them get away with that added wrinkle).

 

[millerb7]

O lord, somebody woke the kraken.

Release the kraken!

Oh so appropriate... it releases on Friday

 

[qtx43]

However, Google is a open company...

Your naivete amuses me.

 

[dustinsc]

Apple's involvement may be the only way developers can avoid paying the licensing fee. It would be too expensive for developers to fight this individually.

 

[benthewraith]

Re: Lodsys

Apple to Lodsys: "Cry havoc, and let slip the hogs of war."

 

[nwcs]

O lord, somebody woke the kraken.

Release the kraken!

Smithers, release the robotic Richard Simmons!

 

[benthewraith]

Smithers, release the robotic Richard Simmons!

I'm not sure that would have the same effect, really.

 

[Full of Win]

Apple needs to warm up the legal bombers and litigate these a--holes into bankruptcy.

 

[ChristianVirtual]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Patent should be voided if the holder can't prove any product active in a market ... Like trademarks ...
That could reduce patent trolls and still keep active inventors protected.

 

[cmaier]

Apple needs to warm up the legal bombers and litigate these a--holes into bankruptcy.

Again - they already licensed the patent, which is essentially an admission of its validity. They have a tough road ahead of them.

 

[jazzkids]

I posted my lack of understanding on this yesterday and I have to admit I am still confused. Let me get this straight....

If you have an upgrade button on your app, you need to pay Lodsys a license?

What if it were called "power up" or heavens.. "buy it"??

Does this hold true for websites that are asking you to upgrade?

 

[cmaier]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Patent should be voided if the holder can't prove any product active in a market ... Like trademarks ...
That could reduce patent trolls and still keep active inventors protected.

They are active in the market. They license the patent to many companies.

If you mean they have to make actual products, you would then be disallowing universities from patenting things, which would essentially destroy the US higher education system. You might want to rethink this.

 

[MacBoobsPro]

I posted my lack of understanding on this yesterday and I have to admit I am still confused. Let me get this straight....

If you have an upgrade button on your app, you need to pay Lodsys a license?

What if it were called "power up" or heavens.. "buy it"??

Does this hold true for websites that are asking you to upgrade?

I dont get it either. So no one can have an 'in app purchase button' without first paying Lodsys?

 

[MacGod]

They are active in the market. They license the patent to many companies.

If you mean they have to make actual products, you would then be disallowing universities from patenting things, which would essentially destroy the US higher education system. You might want to rethink this.

We have a HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM in this country? Going after the individual users is a horrible idea... even if enforceable - It will just force us all to develop without an 'upgrade' button of sorts...

 

[chrono1081]

They are active in the market. They license the patent to many companies.

If you mean they have to make actual products, you would then be disallowing universities from patenting things, which would essentially destroy the US higher education system. You might want to rethink this.

It's pretty much already destroyed The U.S. needs to get away from the "well rounded education" idea. It doesn't work in the modern world.

 

[mrfoof82]

The main reason Apple is standing up is because if a developer settles with Lodsys and pays the royalties, they're actually violating their developer agreement with Apple (yes, it's true!). As a developer, you currently can't win.

Developers are legally between a rock (Lodsys) and a hard place (Apple), even though the infringing IP is provided by Apple, not by developers (developers use Apple's API to infringe the patent). I'm sure if some developers settled, Apple would give a bye, but right now this is an ugly situation that is creating a decent amount of fear between iOS developers.

As an iOS developer, it's good to see Apple letting everyone know they're looking out for their developer community.

 

[Rot'nApple]

O lord, somebody woke the kraken.

Release the kraken!

Protect the sails! It'll attack from the starboard, I've seen it before...

/
/
/

 

[cere]

The patent is already considered valid and Apple has acknowledged this by licensing it. IMO, the legal question is going to be, does Apple's license of the patent extend to third party developers. Apple has included the patented 'technology' in the API they provide to their developers to use. Further, Apple takes a cut of all transactions that utilize the API in order to process the in-app purchases.

-Does the fact that the developers are simply implementing an Apple provided API that utilizes a technology that Apple has licensed mean that the developers are covered by the Apple held license?
-Does Apple's license cover only their own use of the technology (as in the App Store, by definition, is an app that performs in-app purchases) or does it also cover the Apple provided API and subsequent third party usage of it?
-Would developers be able to reasonably assume that the 30% they pay for using the API should include any royalties incurred by using that API?

 

[pimentoLoaf]

Lodsys has now addressed this concern by referring to it as a "pixie dust" problem -- that is, just because Apple has licensed something doesn't mean it's license sprinkles down upon any particular developer.