Lodsys today. Ten more in 6 months. A hundred more in 2 years.
At last check, 750 new software-related patents are issued every week.
57.5% is not out of the realm of possibilities if Lodsys wins.
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.
Apple 'Actively Investigating' Lodsys Patent Claims as More Developers Hit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lodsys today. Ten more in 6 months. A hundred more in 2 years.
At last check, 750 new software-related patents are issued every week.
57.5% is not out of the realm of possibilities if Lodsys wins.
Simple...
Because nobody pays for Android hobbyware. There's no money to go after.
The actual patent is incredibly broad and vaguely covers a distributed exchange and feedback system. So things like online help, suggestions based on selected items, or update/upgrades based the user's desires or experiences could be argued are covered. It has absolutely nothing to do with the title of a button or some other very specific point. That would fall under the realm of a design patent (as opposed to utility) or a trademark.
I personally think the patent is bogus. It had a relatively long 11 year approval process and the poor examiner probably just wanted to be done with it. And given the fact that it was published in '92, it may have been difficult to reject. I also agree with the consensus that the patent system needs at least improvements and probably an overhaul. However, the "inventing ecosystem" (for lack of a better term) is very complex and there are no easy solutions. Those proposing "Just do --- and problem solved" do not understand the scope of the problem.
Last edited:
Other than maybe Stanford, football isn't a good source of income for tech schools
Particularly in pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, patent income makes a huge difference for many of these schools. I don't have percentages, but i know that where I got my graduate degrees, a couple patents expired, and it made a huge difference.
You are, of course, entitled not to apply to schools with curriculums you don't like or curriculums not specifically tailored to what you perceive as your needs. Feel free to apply to Brown, which won't ask you to take any class you don't want to take. Feel free to apply to Hampshire, where you can design your own personalized program of study completely from scratch. That way, you won't ever have to be exposed to any ideas with which you don't want to grapple.
Some of us, however, value a broad curriculum that exposes us to a variety of disciplines and intellectual pursuits we might not otherwise have encountered, enriches our perspectives and allows to make cross-disciplinary connections, and hopefully leaves us less likely to commit flagrant grammatical errors in our internet posts.
Its not about the piddling amount of money Apple makes from their 30% cut of .99 apps.
Its about the chilling effect this will have on serious developers building quality (i.e. paid) apps for the platform.
Apple HAS to be seen as defending their developers or they lose perhaps the biggest advantage they have over Android et al.
Either that, or they have to release 'upgrade' tools that circumvent the 'patents'.
Explanation
Okay,
So what's the claim? In-App Purchasing?
Can developers create a free app and then advertise a paid app? Or is that covered as an in-app purchase?
If that's the case, then wouldn't every clickable ad within an app be subject to this "user interaction" patent?
Say Papa Johns wants you to buy a pizza, so they run an Ad in the Angry Birds Lite. Does Papa Johns have to pay a royalty on the sale that they created through an in-app ad?
Seriously, it sounds like Lodsys patented "User Interaction". Someone explain it!
Okay,
So what's the claim? In-App Purchasing?
Can developers create a free app and then advertise a paid app? Or is that covered as an in-app purchase?
If that's the case, then wouldn't every clickable ad within an app be subject to this "user interaction" patent?
Say Papa Johns wants you to buy a pizza, so they run an Ad in the Angry Birds Lite. Does Papa Johns have to pay a royalty on the sale that they created through an in-app ad?
Seriously, it sounds like Lodsys patented "User Interaction". Someone explain it!
Right... teaching professionals reasoning, awareness and history are a total waste of time. After all, we need to prepare them to understand the world through a corporate news filter.
lol its 0.575%,
i.e. if you sold $1000 worth of apps, you are entitled to pay: 5.75.
So if your profit is $700, you pay $5.75.
5.75/(700-5.75)% = 0.82%. That's less than 1% of your actual profit.
Its not a big money at all. Maybe for lodsys but not for any developer. But is this legit? According to the law - YES. Is the Law legit?
I am a big fan of Judas Priest. I am born to break the law.
See my response above. And the question of where the line is drawn on what is or is not covered is part of why patent lawyers get rich. You could argue in-app purchase is not covered or you could argue nearly everything you do within iOS involving the internet is covered.
If you follow the link to the patent, basically read claim 1. Though if you are not familiar with that sort of writing style it can be difficult to make sense of.
I guess I'm unclear on the concept, but I thought the whole idea of software copyrights was to protect the 'how', not the 'what'.
Why else would there be such a long-standing history of 'clean room' engineering, where you duplicate a functionality from scratch, demonstrably not using any code from existing products?
If the patent actually covers "a button named 'upgrade'" that magically triggers that process on any back-end system", then I don't even know what to say about our patent process.
But if it covers the method by which that is accomplished, then it would seem that the ball is in Apple's court to modify its APIs and back end.
Why else would there be such a long-standing history of 'clean room' engineering, where you duplicate a functionality from scratch, demonstrably not using any code from existing products?
If the patent actually covers "a button named 'upgrade'" that magically triggers that process on any back-end system", then I don't even know what to say about our patent process.
But if it covers the method by which that is accomplished, then it would seem that the ball is in Apple's court to modify its APIs and back end.
So then isn't vbulletin (Macrumor's forum) in violation along with the millions who have a website with a help button or help section?
These are the types of things that kill creativity. They argue from the high hills that their creativity should be honored and paid for, but there is such a thing as being vague. I can't believe that something so vague got a patent.
I bet the patent office will be getting a bunch of calls on this one.
Well, it is true that people are quick to vilify lawyers. Most patent lawyers are just writing up and editing tremendously long and tedious applications and responses. Got to pay off your hundreds of thousands in student debt some how. Very few are involved in patent trials.
lol My post went right over your head. I will try to be more clear...
Lodsys is only the first of many imitators. Pay them and rest assured many more will spawn from their success.
100 patent trolls x 0.575% each = 57.5%
Get it?
Apple could actually "payoff" Lodsys to NOT settle with google & MS? I'm no lawyer (and I know you are, so I'm sure you are right
), it just seems highly improper.Hasn't there been standard set in recent years that the 'what' is what is covered (as ridiculous as that may be)?
Amazon's One Click payments and NTP's patent covering wireless transmission of messages (RIM) are a couple high profile examples of the 'what' and not the 'how' being patented.
There is a whole debate on whether ideas should be patentable or if it should only be the actual implementation. It would seem implementation should win the day, otherwise one could patent 'mouse trap' and sue anyone that creates a better mouse trap. But, it seems in todays environment, it is the idea that is enough. The whole system has gone to hell.
Thanks. Reading claim 1, it sounds like they patented The Internet. I'm curious if big online retailers such as Overstock or Amazon have had to license this patent. Our view of this patent might be a bit myopic and it may be well established.
Of interest, Lodsys' blog lists the things they believe are covered by their patents
* provide online help, customer support, and tutorials
* conduct online subscription renewals
* provide for online purchasing of consumable supplies
* survey users for their impressions of their products and services
* assist customers to customize their products and services
* display interactive online advertisements
* collect information on how users actually use their products and services
* sell upgrades or complimentary products
* maintain products by providing users notice of available updates and assisting in the installation of those updates.
(So not quite the Internet, but close...)
* provide online help, customer support, and tutorials
* conduct online subscription renewals
* provide for online purchasing of consumable supplies
* survey users for their impressions of their products and services
* assist customers to customize their products and services
* display interactive online advertisements
* collect information on how users actually use their products and services
* sell upgrades or complimentary products
* maintain products by providing users notice of available updates and assisting in the installation of those updates.
(So not quite the Internet, but close...)
You do know how higher education funding works, right? Almost no funding comes from football, or any sports related programs for that matter. It actually works like this: If state school, primary funding is from the state; tuition; cut-in on grants; patents and other inventions; and finally other miscellaneous sources of revenue. Football revenue is dismal compared to government and state funding, with the government contribution mostly coming in the form of research grants which the university takes a percentage of. While most research grants on the academic side are rather small, some can be quite large, especially if it's part of a consortium. (Ex: A couple of professors get together for a nice big R grant of $7 million).
I don't know how it is in the technology sector (which from your previous postings indicate that is your primary area), but I know in pharma patent lawyers make rather nice paychecks...
This is what disturbs me. I haven't read all of the claims, but likely this was approved in a hurry, and some of these probably shouldn't be valid. Because Apple already licensed, we will see.
Not to get on an aside, but the USPO would do far better if the revenue they collected was actually given to them, so they could hire more staff to do things properly and in a timely manner. Instead anything collected goes into the general fund.
The patent system is a joke on all levels. Just remove it.
How can you patent obvious things? Why on earth should you have to pay to use an invention you thought of yourself because some vaguely-worded patent was filed a decade ago? In what philosophical framework of justice is that valid?
'You have to pay us because we pre-invented what you invented'. It's Minority Reporty rubbish
It's like thge guy who got a big payout from Sony cos he made a chunky 'Walkman' before they did. Portable cassette machines were obvious and making them smaller and smaller until they were walkman-sized was obvious.
Even while Apple have clearly seen Samsung rip off the iPhone, at the end of the day any touch-screen phone is going to have icons you point at menus and all stuff that's been around for years.
Real artists ship.
How can you patent obvious things? Why on earth should you have to pay to use an invention you thought of yourself because some vaguely-worded patent was filed a decade ago? In what philosophical framework of justice is that valid?
'You have to pay us because we pre-invented what you invented'. It's Minority Reporty rubbish
It's like thge guy who got a big payout from Sony cos he made a chunky 'Walkman' before they did. Portable cassette machines were obvious and making them smaller and smaller until they were walkman-sized was obvious.
Even while Apple have clearly seen Samsung rip off the iPhone, at the end of the day any touch-screen phone is going to have icons you point at menus and all stuff that's been around for years.
Real artists ship.
Even if this is or becomes a requirement for devs, how does Loadsys know how many sales come from in app links on a 'lite' version upgrade vs someone just finding the app in the app store and buying it. there's no metrics that monitor this, that I'm aware of.
they can't be entitled to 0.575% of all app purchases since the patent is for in app upgrades....this will be interesting.