Well then you probably should have been working for such a company in the first place if all you can do is invent and you don't have the ability to market, sell, and distribute the product as well. Just because you invent something doesn't mean you're all of a sudden entitled to a mountain of cash.
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 Free to Continue Patent Threats Against Developers After Judge Tosses Apple's Legal Challenge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well then you probably should have been working for such a company in the first place if all you can do is invent and you don't have the ability to market, sell, and distribute the product as well. Just because you invent something doesn't mean you're all of a sudden entitled to a mountain of cash.
I can't post a direct link, but search for WO 2011149558 A2. At first I thought it was one of Google's April's fools jokes.
In App purchases have gone from a reasonable supplementary revenue stream for developers, to an abomination.
With the amount now being charged for IAP's these day, I think Lodsys are not the only trolls under the bridge.
I have no sympathy for the Dev's who are actually charging for an App then getting kids [and adult's] to pay up to £60+ for useless gem packs and upgrades etc.
At least if an App is free, I know not to bother downloading it as it will invariably be full of adverts and IAP con-tricks.
It has all become like those awful UK holiday resort chains (you know who they are), who get kids to pump arcade machines with money to obtain tokens, who's prize value is a fraction of the money you paid.
So if the Dev's are abusing the system [making huge amounts of money from it] and ruining the spirit of the original idea, what is so different to what Lodsys is doing?
They can all burn in patent hell.
With the amount now being charged for IAP's these day, I think Lodsys are not the only trolls under the bridge.
I have no sympathy for the Dev's who are actually charging for an App then getting kids [and adult's] to pay up to £60+ for useless gem packs and upgrades etc.
At least if an App is free, I know not to bother downloading it as it will invariably be full of adverts and IAP con-tricks.
It has all become like those awful UK holiday resort chains (you know who they are), who get kids to pump arcade machines with money to obtain tokens, who's prize value is a fraction of the money you paid.
So if the Dev's are abusing the system [making huge amounts of money from it] and ruining the spirit of the original idea, what is so different to what Lodsys is doing?
They can all burn in patent hell.
Last edited:
Yes and no.
IAP which target children and include 'pay to win' options are horrible and shouldn't be encouraged. They're wrong, plain and simple.
But IAP can be beneficial to consumers and developers. Listen to the 'Real World Price Dynamics' podcast with Lauren Smith or read Marco Arment's thoughts on it.
I'm happy to pay up front and you may be too, but it seems that we're not representative of the majority of app purchasers. These articles suggest the majority of consumers want free apps and once there's a perception of value, they'll purchase extra functionality.
In app purchases have a place. The fact that big hitters are getting behind them may just mean trolls like Lodsys will be forced to disappear. Disney and EA, for example, are two companies using IAP with deep pockets who will fight them.
IAP which target children and include 'pay to win' options are horrible and shouldn't be encouraged. They're wrong, plain and simple.
But IAP can be beneficial to consumers and developers. Listen to the 'Real World Price Dynamics' podcast with Lauren Smith or read Marco Arment's thoughts on it.
I'm happy to pay up front and you may be too, but it seems that we're not representative of the majority of app purchasers. These articles suggest the majority of consumers want free apps and once there's a perception of value, they'll purchase extra functionality.
In app purchases have a place. The fact that big hitters are getting behind them may just mean trolls like Lodsys will be forced to disappear. Disney and EA, for example, are two companies using IAP with deep pockets who will fight them.
It's pretty clear after several years of hearing about this Eastern Texas Court giving consistent rulings in favor of the patent trolls that they are corrupt so why isn't anything being done about it? Patent trolls always file there because they know they will always win there. Every time there is an article there it is, like clockwork.
Really, i think people need to get a hold of themselves, its just a patent, not the end of the world. Anyway, i think Obama is probably a bit busy, isn't the US Government about to be shut down on OCT 1st!
There always existed the facility to ascertain the value of an App prior to purchase. This was facilitated in the form of the App being free, with limited functionality and / or advertisements and without the current IAP format.
You then simply paid the App value to unlock that 'Demo' if you wanted further content and full functionality after determining the value of the App. Yes, I agree that relevant IAP's have a place and I do not begrudge Dev's using it to make money.
However, you can no longer always differentiate between 'paid' and 'free' App's until it is too late.
The argument for people wanting a free app then paying instalments afterwards, is all part of the 'Loans-until-payday' ethos which is just another scam credit system, with the added 'gaming' addiction element built-in.
If you can afford an iOS device, whether you are on a plan, loan or otherwise, you can afford a £99p to £3.99 App. The problem seems to lay more in the social mechanic's, where it is now seen to be normal to have to download multiple App's per day.
I own a car and although I moan about the price of fuel and insurance, I have a choice to get the bus, or budget for fuel etc. It is the same for [would be] iOS owners, if you can't afford to own one, don't buy one. Or at the very least, budget for App expenditure.
The reason why the "big hitters" are backing this is not for altruistic reasons, but that is another post for another tread.
Doesn't matter if it is commonplace "now." What if you invented the cure for cancer and competitors copied you and it became "commonplace?" You would definitely sue.
Scrap patents.. 'Pure and simple'! Oh crap that's a trade mark! Ok I will use my kidney to make Kidney dialysis a thing of the past.. Eh? What? I don't own my own genes?? You mean the human genome patented them??
Ok lets scrap lawyers it would be easier!
Ok lets scrap lawyers it would be easier!
I agree. It should be a simple use it or lose it. If you don't have an actual product out there you can't claim the patent right. That would stop the patent trolls who are just greedy lawyers.
Same as happens now with any major open source project, many of which are written by one company or group of individuals but branded and sold by multiple others as the licences allow them to do (heck, OS X and iOS include their fair share). The company that does the best job of marketing it, adding value and/or supporting their customers wins. That's capitalism for ya.
This is NOT a patent!
Lodsys are claiming they have some unique process when almost every application on any platform has an update button, it's not a huge leap of anyones imagination to link in purchases and extras.
This patent is not even helping innovation, there is no alternative to in-app purchases.
Patents need an overhaul ASAP.
Also i disagree that the developers need to be licensed to sell in app when apple owns the ecosystem and are licensed to do so. Lodsys are just trying to extort money from apple.
The developers were given the option by apple to have in-app merc not the other way round. Apple are culpable for it's use. Developers will settle and claim off apple anyway but it involves laywers who are going to suck everyone dry for no reason.
If I were a developer I would refer lodsys to apple as they control the developer ecosystem and that if lodsys wanted to settle with myself as a developer that they would need to be able to handle getting all the money needed to settle a license back from apple before paying out anything.
Lodsys are claiming they have some unique process when almost every application on any platform has an update button, it's not a huge leap of anyones imagination to link in purchases and extras.
This patent is not even helping innovation, there is no alternative to in-app purchases.
Patents need an overhaul ASAP.
Also i disagree that the developers need to be licensed to sell in app when apple owns the ecosystem and are licensed to do so. Lodsys are just trying to extort money from apple.
The developers were given the option by apple to have in-app merc not the other way round. Apple are culpable for it's use. Developers will settle and claim off apple anyway but it involves laywers who are going to suck everyone dry for no reason.
If I were a developer I would refer lodsys to apple as they control the developer ecosystem and that if lodsys wanted to settle with myself as a developer that they would need to be able to handle getting all the money needed to settle a license back from apple before paying out anything.
Last edited:
The President cannot intervene in this case, because it's not before the ITC. All his reform task force can do is give recommendations to Congress, which is what they did. It was Congress that dropped the ball. As he said recently:
Exactly. We have software patents because they favor large companies with the time and money to spend applying and reapplying for them.
Congress isn't going to fight big business in this way.
That complaint goes for a lot of software patents.
To my mind, it's not much different from the way that app stores extort extra money from developers for in-app purchases.
At least Lodsys is only asking for 0.575% of the developer's profits.
E.g. If a developer sells $1,000 worth of in-app purchases, then about...
- $300 goes to the app store owner. (30% fee)
- $150 goes to taxes. (15% bracket)
- $4 goes to Lodsys. (0.575% of remaining)
So out of ~$454 in expenses, $4 goes to Lodsys. A large coffee. No wonder many devs just give in and pay.
Presumably this is simply a case of a defendant wishing to add another party to the litigation and having permission refused.
I would have thought there was a) plenty of scope for appealing this up the judicial ladder and/or b) Apple simply going on the offensive and starting a fresh claim on new grounds of Apple v Lodsys.
It's rarely wise to take on a multi billion dollar company unless you have equally deep pockets.
I would have thought there was a) plenty of scope for appealing this up the judicial ladder and/or b) Apple simply going on the offensive and starting a fresh claim on new grounds of Apple v Lodsys.
It's rarely wise to take on a multi billion dollar company unless you have equally deep pockets.
Apple needs to replace their General Counsel. He just keeps losing these things.
----------
not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
----------
not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
It's pretty clear after several years of hearing about this Eastern Texas Court giving consistent rulings in favor of the patent trolls that they are corrupt so why isn't anything being done about it? Patent trolls always file there because they know they will always win there. Every time there is an article there it is, like clockwork.
First of all, just to be clear these are Federal judges we're talking about. And venue shopping in the Eastern District of Texas has been going on for the better part of 20 years, since Bill Clinton appointed David Folsom, who spent the night at the White House at both Clinton inaugurations, to the Eastern District. Folsom then went about making it very clear that plaintiffs lawyers were welcome and encouraged to file their venue shopping big tort cases against big corporations there. Texarkana, where Folsom sat on the bench is a miserable little nothing town (much like Marshall, where Gilstrap sits) and litigation is their main source of commerce.
Ward, who Gilstrap just replaced was a Clinton appointee, also. And Gilstrap is an Obama appointee. So if you think that you're going to see any relief from Obama I would not recommend holding your breath. Best bet for justice is if the 5th circuit overturns on appeal.
Absolutely. I don't agree with this decision, but if it reverses some of the IAP trend it would have done us all some good.
Way to frame it in a light that is completely inaccurate. The Apple Store terms are clearly laid out when a developer signs up. Apple provides all of the resources for them to learn to develop, all of the tools to develop, all of the banking tools, and an amazing ecosystem. This allows small developers who have never had such a great avenue to selling their product a ready made store and audience. How many of these developers would even have a business if it weren't for Apple?
Lodsys, on the other hand buys a patent from some dude who thought of an ambiguous idea, and doesn't have the motivation or imagination to move forward with it and adds it to their portfolio. They then threaten Apple with it, and Apple licenses it. Lodsys then goes after the small developers that Apple was trying to protect by licensing the patent in the first place.
One is a productive and responsible company that brings value to the marketplace. The other is a scum sucking parasite that reigns down on the free market like a hoard of locusts.
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
If the patent law was changed so companies had to use the patent in a product within a reasonable time (2 years? 5 years?) then the patent would be valid, else it'd be invalidated. Or perhaps prove that they are in the process of designing/making a product that uses that would use the invention they are trying to patent.
Both of those would completely stop the trolls as they wouldn't actually have any products to claim their patent is used in. Either that or plain outlaw any company that has hordes of patents and doesn't make anything related at all.
Both of those would completely stop the trolls as they wouldn't actually have any products to claim their patent is used in. Either that or plain outlaw any company that has hordes of patents and doesn't make anything related at all.
It's good to be a lawyer.
Pretty discouraging if you were thinking of doing anything innovative as a programmer though.
Perhaps this will motivate programmers to use multiple fake IDs, move their money via bitcoin & set up laundering schemes, live in solar-powered attic apartments & access the internet through nearby coffee shops, and generally live like fugitives. ...develop a truly anonymous infrastructure to operate from.
Bad laws should not be complied with.
Pretty discouraging if you were thinking of doing anything innovative as a programmer though.
Perhaps this will motivate programmers to use multiple fake IDs, move their money via bitcoin & set up laundering schemes, live in solar-powered attic apartments & access the internet through nearby coffee shops, and generally live like fugitives. ...develop a truly anonymous infrastructure to operate from.
Bad laws should not be complied with.
Thats the problem.
I think somewhere i read that patents are also awarded based on time limit, if they don't come out and make product or utilize it in their product then it gets nullified. Not sure where i read. I think it will be good idea that way.
It's pretty clear after several years of hearing about this Eastern Texas Court giving consistent rulings in favor of the patent trolls that they are corrupt so why isn't anything being done about it? Patent trolls always file there because they know they will always win there. Every time there is an article there it is, like clockwork.
And if they always sided with BIG corporations, there would be claims of them being bought out.