Test cases? Maybe these are the ones that they feel can influence the rest of the developers.
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 Responds to Apple, Files Lawsuits Against App Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Test cases? Maybe these are the ones that they feel can influence the rest of the developers.
There is no way Apple will allow its developers to have to pay a licensing fee, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I haven't been served by Lodsys, but I still want my $1000 for the stress of wondering if I will be served! 
***Abstract from patent***
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.
***End Abstract***
So this is the abstract from the patent that Lodsys is claiming that developers have breached. From this abstract we can gather that the premise of the patent is that it covers interactions between a "unit of a commodity" (ie. iPhone App) and users with respect to gathering the users "perceptions of the commodity".
I think we can all agree that given this abstract, going after developers for in app purchases has nothing to do with gathering "perceptions of the commodity". More so the only grounds that Lodsys would have for suing using this patent, taking the abstract at face value, is for the feedback via the iTunes Store, which is owned by Apple, whom is licensed.
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.
***End Abstract***
So this is the abstract from the patent that Lodsys is claiming that developers have breached. From this abstract we can gather that the premise of the patent is that it covers interactions between a "unit of a commodity" (ie. iPhone App) and users with respect to gathering the users "perceptions of the commodity".
I think we can all agree that given this abstract, going after developers for in app purchases has nothing to do with gathering "perceptions of the commodity". More so the only grounds that Lodsys would have for suing using this patent, taking the abstract at face value, is for the feedback via the iTunes Store, which is owned by Apple, whom is licensed.
I agree that Lodsys wasn't trying to make money from the developers. They're hostages. What I don't understand is why Lodsys is trying to make it look like they aren't taking hostages with such weak PR maneuvers as saying they'll give the developers $1000. Apple isn't the type of company to bow to popular pressure even if Lodsys somehow tricked everyone into believing they weren't patent trolls. It just makes no sense why Lodsys is pretending to care what the customers of iOS devices think. Lodsys isn't selling anything to us, they're selling to Apple.
Everything you said, but especially what I bolded.
What's bizarre is that the only significant developer is Iconfactory for Twitterific. I doubt Lodsys will get anything significant out of "Shadow Era." How did they pick these 7?
What? Give them what they want???????
They are like a Tick Embedded in Ones Groin.
This is not even about validating the license and not (and as mentioned by others paying for license does not validate it).
This is about Lodsys trying to charge a second time for it - Apple payed already for it for use in their API, the devs are not reimplementing things, they use Apples API which is already licensed.
I am very surprised by the replies in the forum.
When Apple targets people for copyright and trademark infringements, they are supported in droves; as they should be.
But a company feels that their contract is violated and they are being assaulted by comments here.
If they company is right, I hope they take Apple to the bank, and vice versa.
I think this company maybe be right, or they have an exceptional poker face.
When Apple targets people for copyright and trademark infringements, they are supported in droves; as they should be.
But a company feels that their contract is violated and they are being assaulted by comments here.
If they company is right, I hope they take Apple to the bank, and vice versa.
I think this company maybe be right, or they have an exceptional poker face.
As far as I understand Corporate Law, the first rule is to multiply the estimated time your legal team will work on an issue and offer a percentage of that to the other side as "go away and leave us alone" money. I bet Lodsys is banking on this.
The problem with this though is if Apple does this, it opens the door for every 2-bit IP shark to come out of the woodwork to get a payday.
Apple is either going to go for the one time payment and make them disappear (maybe even buying out the IP) or they are going to destroy them.
The decision Apple's legal team will make is - is it cheaper to pay them off and risk other people coming at us OR do we show every IP holding firm that we aren't going to be pushed around (nor will we let you push around the developers.
That said, if I had half of Apple's money in the bank, I would have the absolute best legal team money could buy. If that team got together and wrote the letter that Apple released, it isn't because they are ready to roll over. If they were just going to pay Lodsys to disappear, it would have happened already. No, they are looking for a good old fashion beat down.
While I'm not a fan of either lawsuits, have you seen the Samsung products? They are in some parts out-right copies. That's the difference here. Apple has actually done something rather than just file a vague patent 20 years ago and now claim for it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the US patent system is really utterly broken and I'm amazed that it hasn't crippled the businesses more than it already have.
Where's the actual patent, claims and contract wording b/n AAPL and Lodsys?
But $1000 for wrongful lawsuit? Lodsys has got to be joking! Clearly Lodsys understands the relationship b/n AAPL and its iOS developers and knows the big money is in AAPL's hands, and is aiming get a significant share of that. A real weasel!
But $1000 for wrongful lawsuit? Lodsys has got to be joking! Clearly Lodsys understands the relationship b/n AAPL and its iOS developers and knows the big money is in AAPL's hands, and is aiming get a significant share of that. A real weasel!
Indeed, if those are the only people they're going after at the moment then I'm wondering if they're trying to get a bunch of easy developers to fold to weaken Apple's position (and they just threw in Iconfactory to try to hide what they're doing). You'd think they would go after juicier targets if they really cared about getting money out of the developers.
It's blatantly obvious they're trying to double dip on the patents and are acting like children trying to get it.
What we got is a cold war with a tiny country called Lodsys getting their hands on a broken arrow and trying to extort money for it.
That is utter nonsense. Licensing a patent _usually_ doesn't mean you think its valid, it means licensing it is cheaper than going to court, even when you win the court case. But in this case, Apple licensed a bunch of patents en masse, which were then sold to Lodsys. So Apple may never even have looked at this patent, it just came together with a bunch of others.
However, what Apple _does_ claim is something totally different from what you say. Apple says that it is the Apple iDevices, the Apple software on these iDevices, and the Apple App Store that implement what Lodsys claim is an invention patented by them. The developers have nothing to do with it; they don't implement the invention, so they don't owe Lodsys a penny, whether Apple has a license or not. If there is anyone that can be sued, it is the one who implements the patent, and that is Apple. But Apple has a license.
After the open letter that Apple sent to Lodsys explaining the situation to them, any developer being sued might very well claim that this is a frivolous lawsuit (because Lodsys _must_ know they are in the wrong) in which case that developer should be rewarded the cost of their lawyers as well, and that could be very expensive for Lodsys.
The story that goes around about IBM is this: If anyone asks them for money and threatens a lawsuit, if the amount is > $25,000, IBM _will_ pound them into the ground as hard as they can. If the amount is less than $25,000, they throw a coin and either pound them into the ground as hard as they can, or send them a letter "sue us and we will pound you into the ground as hard as we can". Sometimes it costs money (like IBM vs. SCO, which cost IBM many millions while SCO went bankrupt), but overall it is good for business.
Last edited:
This is disgraceful; it's easily one of the stupidest patents I've seen (how the hell do these kinds of patents keep getting granted?!), Apple has clear negotiated a license in order to cover their developers so they can integrate the feature as painlessly as possible instead of fighting the stupid patent, and now Lodsys turn around and start filing lawsuits anyway?
Lodsys needs to be destroyed. Hell, the whole bloody patent process needs to be scrapped and re-written with all current patents voided, as it's obvious that 99% of technology patents are just people describing things in the vaguest terms possible in the hopes of suing people that use a technology that might match.
Lodsys needs to be destroyed. Hell, the whole bloody patent process needs to be scrapped and re-written with all current patents voided, as it's obvious that 99% of technology patents are just people describing things in the vaguest terms possible in the hopes of suing people that use a technology that might match.
Only a $1,000 for misfiling a suit? Sheesh - they should have stepped upto the plate and offered each developer 10,000 - 20,000 each - that's probably how much it'll cost the developers to defend themselves and then some.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Well, I've been in Italy this whole time and I have a reasonably prominent iPad app with an upgrade button. Cant wait to see if I have a two week old FedEX slip on my door when I get home tomorrow. Apple needs to smash these guys. I didnt work my butt of for the past year and a half to make an awesome app that provides a good income for my wife and I just to have it all taken away in legal fees to fight some slimeball troll.
Well, I've been in Italy this whole time and I have a reasonably prominent iPad app with an upgrade button. Cant wait to see if I have a two week old FedEX slip on my door when I get home tomorrow. Apple needs to smash these guys. I didnt work my butt of for the past year and a half to make an awesome app that provides a good income for my wife and I just to have it all taken away in legal fees to fight some slimeball troll.
I hope Apple helps you out if you do get targeted. It is despicable how Lodsys is going about this.
They are fighting against a huge company with many billions in the bank. I hope they know what they're getting themselves into.
Prepare the ass-kickings.
Prepare the ass-kickings.
My vote = Developers-Yes; Lodsys-No
Excuse my ignorance, but...
1) Isn't a patent a limited timeframe protection to help companies develop products and bring them to market and recoup their R&D?
2) Didn't our government institute patent law to encourage innovation and therefore growth economically?
3) With the zillions of patents, trademarks and copyrights filed, how is a programmer/wannabe businessman supposed to be able to innovate, bring to market, and make a living without being sued into shutdown by said holders of the leeching-, trolling-, fill-in-your-own-description-, kind?
If so, why does a company like Lodsys exist at all?
and since Lodsys is not actively developing anything based on the patent it is suing about, isn't that discouraging innovation - the opposite of the intent of patent law?
I applaud Apple for opening up the market again for individual programmers and smaller groups. It has caused me to think about programming again for a living, but what Lodsys is doing makes me think that it's not worth it.
If this were a votable situation, my vote is for:
1) a DOJ sponsored court order for a cease and desist on Lodsys for practices that are anti-competitive, anti-innovative, detrimental to small businesses, and detrimental to the US economy
2) a FTC (or whichever entity is in charge of this) re-evaluation and subsequent enforcement of the formation of companies like Lodsys who's sole purpose/primary source of income is to make money off of licensing patents to declare these companies invalid and dissolve the companies for the betterment of all businesses.
...and thus concludes my venting for this topic.
Excuse my ignorance, but...
1) Isn't a patent a limited timeframe protection to help companies develop products and bring them to market and recoup their R&D?
2) Didn't our government institute patent law to encourage innovation and therefore growth economically?
3) With the zillions of patents, trademarks and copyrights filed, how is a programmer/wannabe businessman supposed to be able to innovate, bring to market, and make a living without being sued into shutdown by said holders of the leeching-, trolling-, fill-in-your-own-description-, kind?
If so, why does a company like Lodsys exist at all?
and since Lodsys is not actively developing anything based on the patent it is suing about, isn't that discouraging innovation - the opposite of the intent of patent law?
I applaud Apple for opening up the market again for individual programmers and smaller groups. It has caused me to think about programming again for a living, but what Lodsys is doing makes me think that it's not worth it.
If this were a votable situation, my vote is for:
1) a DOJ sponsored court order for a cease and desist on Lodsys for practices that are anti-competitive, anti-innovative, detrimental to small businesses, and detrimental to the US economy
2) a FTC (or whichever entity is in charge of this) re-evaluation and subsequent enforcement of the formation of companies like Lodsys who's sole purpose/primary source of income is to make money off of licensing patents to declare these companies invalid and dissolve the companies for the betterment of all businesses.
...and thus concludes my venting for this topic.
If this lawsuit is really over an API developers are using, then Apple can and SHOULD be defending their devs in court. Hell, the health of the platform demands that they do, even if Lodsys is right. There is simply no way a platform can remain healthy if you can get sued for using an API by some random 3rd party. So people rooting for Apple in this case are doing so because their victory is good for the health of the platform. A lot of the concern I see is more about developers getting caught in the middle, which is a valid concern, and hoping Apple will step out and protect them is a valid hope since it is Apple's API causing the problem..
The Apple/Samsung flap is somewhat different. Apple may be overstepping their bounds there, but with the similarities between the iPhone and the Samsung devices in the lawsuit... there's enough there to at least let a judge decide. And here's the thing, with Samsung and Apple, there is/was likely negotiation behind closed doors that we don't hear about.
Lodsys on the other hand seems to be fairly vocal and not been actually negotiating with anyone, just making demands in the hope they will get what they want. Not a very good corporate citizen if true.
This is true, although it isn't quite as easy as preventing these companies from existing. There are also valid companies where their goal is to help the small guy get their patent searched, filed, and find a suitable company who can fully develop the idea. In this case, the company helping the little guy is doing the same thing (making money off licensing/buying/selling patents), but with potentially more responsibility. Do we want to disrupt that part of the market as well?
Unfortunately, the timescales of patents today doesn't quite keep up with the scale of development, which means patents can cause trouble quite a ways down the road more than they did in say, 1880. That's one reason why companies like Lodsys can exist. I'd say if you want to attack this sort of patent troll, you want to shorten the length of patents and erode their ability to profit off the older, cheaper patents.