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

[darkplanets]

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

Real artists ship.

The problem though is that some things aren't shippable per say. How do you protect those?

Let's run through a few hypothetical examples:
-Let's say Intel develops a new manufacturing process that it currently doesn't use
-Let's say Apple develops a new motion sensor and depth detector algorithm or methodology, but doesn't use it yet
-Let's say a pharma creates a new manufacturing process for a widely used synthesis step, but doesn't use that step in any currently shipping products
-Let's say a pharma creates and patents a class of drugs that show promising results (we'll assume IND) but later it fails due to tox issues

In all of those cases, the company is not shipping or using it in a product currently. Does that make it invalid? No. The patent issue isn't such a black and white issue, and to make broad generalizations is borderline ignorance. Not everything can and will be shipping products, or will be used immediately in such. Thus is the way of inventions and technological development-- often not all of the pieces are in place at the same time. Often people forget about the investment into such discoveries as well-- taking a drug from IP to Phase 1 or 2 where it failed costs about $1bn. Here's another example: Bell labs did a lot of work in fiber optics post WWII; while their discoveries weren't patented courtesy of the US government's shortsightedness at the time, many of those advances weren't used in products outright for some time. Does that mean the patent would be invalid? Hardly.

EDIT: There's another flaw with the entire "patents are entirely bad" argument-- often they are based upon declarations of what seems "obvious," but often what's obvious now wasn't obvious back then. Methodology is valid grounds for patenting, and just because it seems trite today doesn't necessarily mean it was back then. The purview of hindsight is absolute. I'm not saying that these patents here are fine however, as they seem overtly broad, but if Apple licensed they must have some stand of validity, and that by no means implies that the patent system is "broken."

 

[kiljoy616]

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?

It really depend on how broad the patent office issued the patent. This is the problem with software patents they can be so broad to encompass a whole lot of ideas that will actually be implemented in the real world. Lots of patents are not very specific at all or troll companies will go out and buy the patent from an individual if they think they can extort money from companies actually making their own version.

Patent system is broken and no one wants to fix it.

 

[Delirium39]

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.

Correct. Devs are not privy to what happens after a link to an App Store item is clicked in their Lite version.

 

[blackcrayon]

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.

The itunes connect interface specifically shows In App purchases in a separate tab from Free or Paid downloads.

Now, how do Lodsys themselves get this number, I have no idea (maybe that's what you were referring to?)

 

[gnasher729]

The patent is already considered valid and Apple has acknowledged this by licensing it.

Absolutely not. Apple has acknowledged that the license fees are less than the cost of going to court, plus the risk of a jury making the wrong decision, that's all. Juries do the strangest things at times.

And since Apple has a license, they can, if they want to, help developers fighting this without running any risk.

 

[Delirium39]

The itunes connect interface specifically shows In App purchases in a separate tab from Free or Paid downloads.

Now, how do Lodsys themselves get this number, I have no idea (maybe that's what you were referring to?)

He's not talking about IAP. He's referring to Upgrade buttons in Lite versions, which are just links to the full version on the Store.

 

[cere]

The issue of whether devs are covered when using an Apple API that Apple have build using licensed technology needs to be settled. With the rumours going around of Apple licensing speech recognition technology and possibly including an API for devs to use, this could continue to be a problem facing developers. At the very least, I hope Apple negotiates future patent licenses, that they intend to include in their APIs, to cover developer usage of those Apple APIs.

 

[cmaier]

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.

As I noted, there are antitrust implications possibly. But, as a general rule, you can get an "exclusive license," meaning that no one else can be licensed.

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..

I made much more as an engineer than I do as a lawyer. I guess everything is relative.

 

[myemailisjustin]

He's not talking about IAP. He's referring to Upgrade buttons in Lite versions, which are just links to the full version on the Store.

Right....IAP uses the StoreKit, so it's measurable, a link behind an 'Upgrade' button that simply takes them to the full blown app isn't measurable unless the app developer uses a 3rd party metrics system in their app (which was allowed then dis-allowed then re-allowed by Apple's TOA for developers)...

 

[cere]

Absolutely not. Apple has acknowledged that the license fees are less than the cost of going to court, plus the risk of a jury making the wrong decision, that's all. Juries do the strangest things at times.

Apple has built a lot of the iOS ecosystem around this patent. Everything from the App Store itself to the API the provide to developers to enable in-app purchases. Given how crucial it is to their model, I don't see how they would let it slide without a fight, if they felt it wasn't valid. When was the last time Jobs backed down from a fight when he felt he was in the right?

 

[Delirium39]

Right....IAP uses the StoreKit, so it's measurable, a link behind an 'Upgrade' button that simply takes them to the full blown app isn't measurable unless the app developer uses a 3rd party metrics system in their app (which was allowed then dis-allowed then re-allowed by Apple's TOA for developers)...

Even then, the dev has no metric about whether the user actually bought the app. They merely have the number of times the button was pushed. The majority of those could be people just wanting more information about the full version.

 

[tny]

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.

An interesting question is whether they represented the license that they sold to Apple in such a way as to mislead Apple into thinking that this did cover their developers. If they did so in ANY WAY, Apple can probably sue them into oblivion.

If I were an Apple developer, I would have my attorney sending a letter to Apple asking for clarification, and indicating that I might be forced to sue Apple for redress because they did not indicate that I would need a license from Lodsys. That would likely be enough to motivate Apple to go after Lodsys.

But I am NOT a lawyer, and my opinion on a legal issue has the value of a dog's opinion on theology - none.

 

[gwangung]

There is a whole debate on whether ideas should be patentable or if it should only be the actual implementation.

NO, there isn't (at least among lawyers).

It's only lay people who debate the rather basic principle of IP: ideas are not covered, but unique implentation is.

 

[cmaier]

An interesting question is whether they represented the license that they sold to Apple in such a way as to mislead Apple into thinking that this did cover their developers. If they did so in ANY WAY, Apple can probably sue them into oblivion.

If I were an Apple developer, I would have my attorney sending a letter to Apple asking for clarification, and indicating that I might be forced to sue Apple for redress because they did not indicate that I would need a license from Lodsys. That would likely be enough to motivate Apple to go after Lodsys.

But I am NOT a lawyer, and my opinion on a legal issue has the value of a dog's opinion on theology - none.

Apple is not a naif. There is undoubtedly a written license agreement that was carefully considered (and perhaps even drafted by) Apple's own lawyers. The idea that anyone "mislead" Apple into thinking that they received what's called a "pass-through" license if they didn't actually receive one is nonsensical.

 

[whooleytoo]

NO, there isn't (at least among lawyers).

It's only lay people who debate the rather basic principle of IP: ideas are not covered, but unique implentation is.

In this case, it hardly seems unique. I'd bet very, very few - if any - of the iOS developers ever read the Lodsys patent beforehand, and thought "that's a great idea, let's steal that". They just implemented a fairly minor, obvious, evolutionary feature without knowledge of the patent.

I know some are arguing that it's only obvious now in hindsight, but I don't see anything clever, specific or unique in what I've read of the patent.

 

[chrono1081]

It's 0.575%, not 57%.



https://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/16/lodsys-responds-to-controversy-over-lawsuit-threats/

Doh! I didn't even catch that hahaha. I was in programming mentality when I wrote that (0.575 registered as 57.5% )

Yup. I was kidding. Didn't feel like writing some PERL code so ended up trolling here. :|

But yes, I am just waiting for Lodsys to sue me so I could forward my complaint to Apple.

It's not that I cannot sustain by paying the required amounts to Lodsys, I can. I can easily sustain and so do the developers I have talked to do.

But yes, I wouldn't want to pay to a patent troll for such a ridiculous patent. I better remove the update option and go **** in front of their office every morning and night. Simple.

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.

Unfortunately colleges like Brown are out of the reach of most of us and we have to rely on schools like Penn State, who at the time I went there for computer science taught one programming class all year and filled the rest with garbage like two English classes, a Humanities class, Western Science Fiction and I forget what other crap I had to take.

Well rounded seriously has no place in todays job market for many professions. If you were hiring a computer programmer would you want someone with 4 years of experience in college who did coding 90% of the time and had the well rounded stuff 10% of the time or vice versa? I guarantee experience in the job you are applying for will win every single time.

The problem comes from the accreditation board. Schools have to have certain amounts of classes to be accredited, although some schools manage to get around the rules.

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.

Yes, it is a waste of time because in reality in college thats not what people get out of those classes. History classes, unless you are a history major or some major where that class is important, should not be taught outside of high school in my opinion. I know thats going to start a flame war and people will think its some sort of crime to say History should be an elective and not mandatory but the real crime is college grads paying $100,000+ for a degree and getting out of college with almost no experience because they had nothing but fluff classes in school. I see it all the time.

 

[DJ Dilbert]

Violation

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.

Sorry Benjy, I have copyrighted that idea of yours already.

You have 21 days to pay me for a license for it or take your comment down.

Thank you from my legal dept.

 

[tigress666]

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.

I think some one in England on this forum mentioned this is how it works in England but the problem with it is you get people who don't have the money to develop their ideas and in swoops some one with money to steal the idea and patent it themselves.

Kinda discourages people from inventing when they know that most likely some one with money will just steal their idea anyways. So you either keep your idea to yourself and hope no one else thinks of it til you have money (and then if you have a useful idea and never get the money but no one else thinks of it, that idea is lost to everyone else) or you put it out and hope some one else doesn't get the money to do it first.

 

[qtx43]

[snip...]
If I were an Apple developer, I would have my attorney sending a letter to Apple asking for clarification, and indicating that I might be forced to sue Apple for redress because they did not indicate that I would need a license from Lodsys. That would likely be enough to motivate Apple to go after Lodsys.

But I am NOT a lawyer, and my opinion on a legal issue has the value of a dog's opinion on theology - none.

I'm not a lawyer either, but a lot of developers are just one or two people putting together an app. My reaction would be the opposite: avoid paying for a lawyer you can't afford and don't antagonize Apple (who should be your ally) with your first move. If enough contact Apple politely about their untenable position, that should motivate them. If not, and the patent trolls get worse, it will hurt Apple too when thousands of developers pull their apps.

 

[jglavin]

Well rounded seriously has no place in todays job market for many professions. If you were hiring a computer programmer would you want someone with 4 years of experience in college who did coding 90% of the time and had the well rounded stuff 10% of the time or vice versa? I guarantee experience in the job you are applying for will win every single time.

Actually, an employer is probably looking more for a degree from a reputable school than an actual list of the classes one has taken. After all, you don't go to college to learn how to do your job. That's not what college is for.

 

[louis Fashion]

Quote of the Day -- Fanned

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.

This just HAS to be the quote of the day: the "pixie dust" theory. God I love it.
You would be fanned, but all I have is this silly arrow button.

 

[chrono1081]

Actually, an employer is probably looking more for a degree from a reputable school than an actual list of the classes one has taken. After all, you don't go to college to learn how to do your job. That's not what college is for.

Maybe for some fields but not all. When I job search the jobs I look for want 4 - 5 years C++ experience, they want OpenGL, OpenCL, and Maya API experience, they also want a portfolio of projects.

Other jobs I search for want to know what games you have worked on that shipped, and want a portfolio of small games, game levels, or mods that you created. If a hiring manager looks only at the school someone went to then they are a pretty foolish person and would have passed up a ton of talent.

I currently work in the IT field and some of the best people we have do not have a college degree or even college period, but they have an excellent resume and a ton of knowledge.

While I do agree on the point that college isn't for learning your job, it should definitely be for learning about the subjects in the job field you are looking for. I also think its bad for people to solely rely on college to teach them everything. If someone doesn't have the drive to learn outside of school then they will be in big trouble. (I constantly see this in the school I am in now, students are lost because they expected to be hand-held through college.)

 

[tlevier]

I think some one in England on this forum mentioned this is how it works in England but the problem with it is you get people who don't have the money to develop their ideas and in swoops some one with money to steal the idea and patent it themselves.

Kinda discourages people from inventing when they know that most likely some one with money will just steal their idea anyways. So you either keep your idea to yourself and hope no one else thinks of it til you have money (and then if you have a useful idea and never get the money but no one else thinks of it, that idea is lost to everyone else) or you put it out and hope some one else doesn't get the money to do it first.

I think in your above situation, it would be best to provide a 7 year development patent to the idea that, in the 7th year, can be reviewed and extended if the "obvious" nature hasn't changed and you are actively using the patent in some way. (Obviously this is just pedantic banter, but that's required to build public consensus which may turn into action.)

 

[cmaier]

Actually, an employer is probably looking more for a degree from a reputable school than an actual list of the classes one has taken. After all, you don't go to college to learn how to do your job. That's not what college is for.

If you're a microprocessor designer, yes, that is what college is for.

 

[marksman]

How many of these developers even make $20,000 a year off their apps. Based on an earlier post on this subject, $20,000 a year would be fee of $115 a year. You can't hire a lawyer for that, while I think patent trolling needs to end, not sure this one is worth fighting over???

By that logic, let them sue the developer for $115.

Seems best course of action for some developers would be to just ignore them.

If all these little developers simply ignored them, there is no way they could successfully go after them all and it would end up costing them way more money then they would ever get out of it.