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

[juicedropsdeuce]

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).

Finally someone who understands logic. Lodsys holds the patents and deserves to be paid for it. It's the law. Besides, it's just a dozen 2nd rate devs, who cares?? Iconfactory will have to pay a couple bucks or their amazing app will disappear from the app store!!! Oh no!!

 

[Keebler]

ok. so i'm obviously not a lawyer, but I recently went through a situation with getty images sending me a threatening letter over an image used on my website (which had been used and supposedly licensed by the web designer).

That seems to have thankfully resolved itself, but it was a heavy handed method of going after the little people. I don't know all the details of this particular situation, but it sure looks like the same thing - developers not being aware of a certain patent, following Apple's rules/development pieces and threatening of legal action by a 3rd party. I'm sure most of these developers have been caught out of left field so to speak.

And as for Apple stepping in, of course they would - they have a vested interest from future financial gains through the app and also from the developer's world in terms of keeping a happy dev place.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[Kris Kelvin]

While I'm sure they could be misleading us, how does their statement not relate to the issue at hand? That's an understanding beyond cynicism.

There's definitely more than one way to interpret the statement from Lodsys, and I think this isn't accidental.
I agree that it implies that Apple, Google and Microsoft all have licensed this very patent from Lodsys. It doesn't explicitly say so though; "the intellectual property for use in its own products" could refer to a number of other patents, which may or may not be held by Lodsys.

Also, interestingly enough, Lodsys' Blog doesn't contain the statement we're discussing about anymore. They now only state that "Apple is licensed for its nameplate products and services.", which is even less specific.

 

[mmcc]

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.

You can risk ignoring the notification, but if they do sue you and drag you into court you can be slapped with willful infringement if you show no action to address the notification.

In that case you pay triple damages and court costs for Lodsys. That will likely be more than $115 and pay for Lodsys' lawyers time spent -- not to mention your own travel and court costs as you likely will not want to show up without a lawyer.

It is certainly an option though.

Good luck!

 

[kdarling]

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

Depends on what they ultimately do.

It might be appropriate that Apple pay the fee out of their 30% take.

 

[840quadra]

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.

I am sure amendments could be made that would still protect the Higher education system.

 

[HiRez]

I wonder if they'll argue that their license obviates the need for individual developers to need a license?

It seems like it should. If they're already charging Apple a license fee for the technology, and Apple is taking a cut of the developer's revenue, isn't Lodsys essentially "double dipping"?

At the same time, if, in fact, Apple is actually already licensing the patent, that really creates problems for they types of things they can do. Trying to claim the patent is invalid, for example, would seem a very weak argument if you've already been licensing it. By licensing it, they've basically already personally validated it.

This is going to have a very negative effect on the developer community (and the use of in-app purchasing specifically) if it's allowed to drag out. Even if developers could pay the fees, part of the appeal of paying Apple the 30% is that you only need to deal with one company. Small developers don't want the logistical and accounting headache of trying to deal with multiple entities, they simply don't have time to deal with it. If it does turn out the fees need to be payed, the only way I can see it working smoothly is if Apple eats the cost (raising the 30% rate puts them at a competitive disadvantage to other app stores), it's folded into their cut and Apple pays Lodsys the developer's fee.

 

[rhp2424]

Of interest, Lodsys' blog lists the things they believe are covered by their patents

* sell upgrades or complimentary products

Does this mean my days at Circuit City from long ago might get me sued?

 

[Frobozz]

Let's hope Apple squishes this with it's corporate overlord status. If there is ever a time to use your might to protect the little guy, it's when you bottom line will be directly impacted by defections.

 

[KnightWRX]

It seems like it should. If they're already charging Apple a license fee for the technology, and Apple is taking a cut of the developer's revenue, isn't Lodsys essentially "double dipping"?

No. If Apple is subject to the same 0.575% cut of their sales that Lodsys is proposing these small time Devs, this is only for Apple branded applications, not for all applications on the app store. So lodsys is not double dipping, they are not receiving royalty payments from sales of other applications that might also infringe their patents, they are only receiving them for Apple, Google and Microsoft applications (depending on their licensing deal).

And what of applications that do not use IAP but still infringe on the patent ? Apple is not even involved in that infrigement, how can their license cover it ?

The fact, Apple maybe only be able to negotiate such a deal for IAP, and pay an additional 0.575% on top of their own royalty for use of IAP. Other developers using simple a link to a full app from a lite app will need to license this patent individually from Lodsys.

 

[ViviUO]

Once again, these types of "companies" should be illegal. Anything to make a quick buck off of the work of others. Yay America.

 

[Cabbit]

Let me get this right, if i come up with a software product someone can sue me for my own ideas because they thought it up before me... Sounds daft.

 

[icewing]

Once again, these types of "companies" should be illegal. Anything to make a quick buck off of the work of others. Yay America.

Some have said Apple should sue them. Some say Apple should buy them.

I say send Jason Bourne to visit Lodsys...

 

[cmaier]

Let me get this right, if i come up with a software product someone can sue me for my own ideas because they thought it up before me... Sounds daft.

Why does it sound daft? By granting them a limited-time monopoly on execution of their idea, they are motivated to spend money on R&D to invent things without having to worry about "free riders" who simply wait for someone else to do the hard work and then leverage those ideas for free.

 

[firewood]

Anything to make a quick buck off of the work of others.

Everything is making a quick buck off of the work of others. The food sold to you by the organic grocery store was genetically engineered by millennia of prehistoric farmers. Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. How far would any app developer get today, if they started out only with the knowledge that existed before Baggage, and weren't allowed to read or hear about anything concerning computers or software technology that had been developed by others in the past century?

 

[firewood]

Let me get this right, if i come up with a software product someone can sue me for my own ideas because they thought it up before me... Sounds daft.

It's worst than that. If it's a non-obvious idea and you didn't publish it anywhere, "First to file" might mean that they can come up with the idea after you, and still potentially get a patent and sue you.

How's that for daft?

 

[PatrickCocoa]

Football Revenue

Saw your other post eventually, too. Timing.

Got percents? Because yes, I think much of the patent system, and schooling system, is absurd. Many schools appear to be relying on football revenue at this point. The entirety of the "US higher education system" is becoming something else, something I doubt someone like you (based on post #30) will appreciate.

The number of universities in America that make money at football is in the single digits. The few that make money typically use it to pay for money-losing sports (i.e., all the others). Those that lose money at football usually make it up in student fees or general revenue from state subsidies.

It's true that football generates a great deal of revenue (mainly from TV, but also tickets sales and merchandise licensing), but that revenue is immediately spent to - wait for it - improve the football team. You're paying a coach $900,000 a year and he wins 9 games? Next year he's going to be making $1.5 million - either you can pay him, or he'll leave and the next guy will require $1.5 million. You've increased ticket sales five years running? Great, now you can do that $15 million training facility upgrade - you know, the one that just barely gets you on a level with every other team in your conference.

The beast must be fed.

 

[cmaier]

It's worst than that. If it's a non-obvious idea and you didn't publish it anywhere, "First to file" might mean that they can come up with the idea after you, and still potentially get a patent and sue you.

How's that for daft?

The U.S. is not a "first to file" jurisdiction, btw. And products sold in the U.S. can be prior art, not just publications.

 

[Cabbit]

Why does it sound daft? By granting them a limited-time monopoly on execution of their idea, they are motivated to spend money on R&D to invent things without having to worry about "free riders" who simply wait for someone else to do the hard work and then leverage those ideas for free.

If the person has implemented a application without any prior knowledge to there patent and there idea how is that person free loading when they themselves have invented the idea.
Of all the software products i have created not once have i checked though the patent records to see if there is a idea i wish to use, it seems senseless.

 

[cmaier]

If the person has implemented a application without any prior knowledge to there patent and there idea how is that person free loading when they themselves have invented the idea.
Of all the software products i have created not once have i checked though the patent records to see if there is a idea i wish to use, it seems senseless.

First, the law (and rightly so) seldom rewards willful ignorance. Putting your head in the sand so you don't know about the patent you are infringing shouldn't be a defense.

But assuming the case where a party really had no idea about a prior patent and really should not have known about a prior patent (for example, by seeing a product that embodies that patent) , yes, they wouldn't likely be freeloading. But the societal costs of having every patent lawsuit turn into a matter of proving what the alleged infringer knew about a prior patent or what he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about a prior patent would be extraordinary. to simplify matters ,the way it works is that if you are the first to invent (in the U.S. we don't care about "first to file") an invention, you are entitled to a monopoly on embodiments of that invention for (as of now) 20 years from when you file the patent.

Not having to worry about "innocent" imitators provides an incentive for inventors to publicly disclose (rather than maintain as trade secrets) their inventions, and allows society to more rapidly leverage of these inventions.

 

[fabianjj]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

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."

I would agree that the patents you described should be perfectly valid, but in many of these cases the patents only describe vague ideas. Take you intel example, this would like them making their next generation 20 nm processors with hyper-whatever-ultimate-you-name-it, which they did through a method they developed themselves. And then being sued by some patentholder claiming to have patented something as vague as "very fast processors".

 

[charlituna]

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

According to Lodsys. And according to them it doesn't cover the developers.

But where's the papers.

 

[3282868]

I ❤ the "United States of America, Inc." The land of greedy corporate giants and salivating lawyers. From malpractice insurance to patent attorney's, such a wonderful world.

 

[rodriguise]

I think Lodsys claims are valid.

Developers should just pay and call it a day.

I got popcorn, do you?

Have you even read the patent? It's completely disconnected from the concept of what they are trying to apply to here. Apple and HP licensed it for web based customer feed back systems, where it rightfully applies. Lodsys is just trying stretch their troll sack over a bigger area, where it doesn't belong.

Finally someone who understands logic. Lodsys holds the patents and deserves to be paid for it. It's the law. Besides, it's just a dozen 2nd rate devs, who cares?? Iconfactory will have to pay a couple bucks or their amazing app will disappear from the app store!!! Oh no!!

Wrong. They hold the patents but they don't apply. Why am I the only one that has read the patent here. And do your research as to why Apple licensed it, has nothing to do with iOS.

 

[cmaier]

Wrong. They hold the patents but they don't apply. Why am I the only one that has read the patent here. And do your research as to why Apple licensed it, has nothing to do with iOS.

You need to read the patent *claims*, not just the patent specification.