Sidebar Sidebar
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

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)

mrfoof82 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said. I don't see that Apple has any choice but to side with the developers. As I understand it to develop on iOS you need to use Apples SDK. The developer has no way of knowing if any of the API's that are part of the SDK are based on technology licenced from someone else. I can't see how Apple can maintain a relationship with developers if their not willing to stand behind their SDK. Who knows what other features of iOS may be tied to patents that Apple does not own and for which the devs could be held liable.

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)

Doing so would violate the terms of the SDK. The dev could pay off the patent trolls and then find they now have a legal issue with Apple.

Edit: This was in response to someone who posted that the devs should just pay. I guess I forgot to hit the quote button.


I hear Lodsys is contemplating suing Sesame Street for violating the patentthey hold on the letter "Q".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cmaier said:
You need to read the patent *claims*, not just the patent specification.
Click to expand...

I read the entire thing. Some of the patents terms are even violated by the sheer fact that Apple tracks the users information during an upgrade. They are still reaching pretty broad with the concept of an upgrade button. They could take down half the internet if they wanted. It's really no less obvious than say trying to patent a cancel button. I could see them going after ratings systems, or systems that offer special upgrades based on user feedback and habits, but not a generic purchase full version button. That's pure troll feces.
 
reputationZed said:
Well said. I don't see that Apple has any choice but to side with the developers. As I understand it to develop on iOS you need to use Apples SDK. The developer has no way of knowing if any of the API's that are part of the SDK are based on technology licenced from someone else. I can't see how Apple can maintain a relationship with developers if their not willing to stand behind their SDK. Who knows what other features of iOS may be tied to patents that Apple does not own and for which the devs could be held liable.
Click to expand...

Except this patent doesn't cover only SDK stuff like IAP. Some people can violate this with 0 Apple code.

And the post you are responding to is bullocks. By licensing outside patents for your application, you are not violating the dev terms with Apple at all, that's just ludicrous.
 
cmaier said:
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).
Click to expand...

You're assuming that Lodsys' claims that Apple patented this random patent number are actually true, accurate, or correct. Apple has never said that. (Nor Google or anyone else for that matter.) This crap company buys up patents to sue companies/people. That's the business model.

It wouldn't surprise me if they know better than to go after Apple, hit the little guy, and hoped since it didn't directly involve Apple, they'd get away with it. Something about this whole thing stinks. Why are Google developers not getting hit with this as well?

I'm glad to see Apple looking into this (which is different than having the backs of their developers) and will hold opinion back until I see Apple's response to these charlatans. I still say I'm going to patent the idea of suing for patents...
 
Always fun to see these loser no-name companies sit on patents in hopes to sue others in order to make a profit.

Eat 'em up Apple.
 
I don't understand this at all. Reading that patent made as much sense to me as looking at hieroglyphics whilst drunk on a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.

So a dev has a Lite app, and because it has an Upgrade button to purchase the full app the dev has to pay some random company 0.57% of their profit?

So what about every single piece of shareware ever released since the dawn of computers? Any piece of software, regardless of device, that offers a paid for unlocked version of the trial software also comes into this?

If this is so, how can such an openly used, generic system be patented years after its use first materialized?

This seems completely off the wall bonkers to me.
 
Lodsys is relying on small developers having a greater incentive to license than to take their case to court, hence them going after small firms.

Except developers feeling under attack means less iOS apps, means less of the things Apple is using to drive its growth.

The question is not is the patent valid. The question is, having pissed off a large, deep pocketed firm protecting its developers, can Lodsys afford to show its valid.
 
FluJunkie said:
Lodsys is relying on small developers having a greater incentive to license than to take their case to court, hence them going after small firms.

Except developers feeling under attack means less iOS apps, means less of the things Apple is using to drive its growth.

The question is not is the patent valid. The question is, having pissed off a large, deep pocketed firm protecting its developers, can Lodsys afford to show its valid.
Click to expand...

The burden isn't on Lodsys to show it's valid - the presumes it to be valid.
 
fabianjj said:
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)



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".
Click to expand...

Ah, but here within lies the crux of the issue: some patents are valid, and some are not. Just because a couple of bad apples slip through doesn't mean the entire system is compromised. As per my previous comment, if the USPO got to keep its revenue then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation now.

The core of the issue is validity through direction, with the key point of contention being obfuscation or broad generalization. While I agree that within the purview of today's technology these patents appear to be overtly broad and obvious, the context of their approval needs to be considered: they were originally brought together in 1992. Per my previous example; if someone were to come up with a generalized architecture for future processors-- let's just say we're back in '92 and someone thought of SOC, but didn't implement it. A general concept, no? As you have stated it could undoubtedly interfere with another company's plans, but is it valid? Just because something is broad or conceptual doesn't always make it invalid-- I would argue that a SOC is a novel idea, even if simple in design and fairly obvious to us today (keep in mind previously we even had floating point processors, etc). If your example patent for "super fast processors" provided some form of methodology (with no prior artwork, etc) for achieving such then it could very well be valid, despite the implementation patented by Intel.

I'm not trying to defend this current case; I'm just pointing out that the patent system isn't as black and white as people make it, and that eliminating the patent system is the last thing you want to do.
 
marksman said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be a small claim case, you don't even need a lawyer, just file a piece of paper at your local court, if the developer doesn't show up they lose.
 
ChazUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hope so. We may delay release of our next app until this is resolved.:confused::apple::mad:
 
cmaier said:
The burden isn't on Lodsys to show it's valid - the presumes it to be valid.
Click to expand...

True - that was a slightly inelegant wording. Even if it presumes its valid, rousing Apple Legal means defending it in court, which is expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back