Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Lodsys Patent Invalidation Efforts: Apple Barred? $15,000 Bounty for Crowdsourced Research

Consultant said:
This would be an interesting case to see how well crowd sourcing to deal with prior art works. Hopefully patent trolls would take notice.
Click to expand...

There is something that irritates me, to see how giant companies (in this case, Apple) will always have advantage over subjects like these which are, in essence, proving the other side wrong. Apple has a lot of fanboys, and as evidenced by one of the first posts in this thread, people see Lodsys as the 'bad guy' when they are simply fighting for what they think is theirs.

Of course, the bigger company has no issue with this as they have the best lawyers and could very well put high bounties for prior acts. Mmm...
 
Zweben said:
I'd really like to see Apple put a chunk of their $30 billion cash on hand into pushing for patent and copyright reform in this country. If they could get actual changes made, any amount of money they spent would probably save them money in the long run. This country's IP laws are absurd.
Click to expand...

Ahhh the 30 billion cash talk again. Apple is too busy trying to get that "cash" right now. They can't spend it because they haven't paid the taxes on it. Apple is too busy lobbying to get their money (tax free) to care about starting a revolution against patents. Why would they? They are doing the same thing. Its business.
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
I think thats the issue though. Some may see developers not as clients but as developers. I think the difference is yes, they buy the API, but they are using the technology for profit vs. you and me who are buying it to consume it.
Click to expand...

But that is something that happens everyday in every big company. Lets say GM buys some electronics from some other company (and that company has licensed that component), even though GM sells the cars for profit (at least one would hope), they don't have to pay license to the company that licensed the technology to the company where they bought it from. If that goes through a chain of several companies it might be even difficult to track everything.
 
I half expect SJ to deliver a keynote for the iPhone 5, and say "We've made the most popular phone ever for 5 years, written an entire OS platform with zillions of apps, engineered all kinds of really cool hardware for it, changed the way everyday people access and utilize data, and then, we gave away all the $ from doing it, to a bunch of do-nothing companies who couldn't make a damn product anyone wanted to use to save their life. So, new for this year, here's the iPhone 5. (black screen). That's right! There isn't one! Enjoy collecting royalties on nothing, ******s. EEEEEFF YUUUUU"

Really.
 
0815 said:
But that is something that happens everyday in every big company. Lets say GM buys some electronics from some other company (and that company has licensed that component), even though GM sells the cars for profit (at least one would hope), they don't have to pay license to the company that licensed the technology to the company where they bought it from. If that goes through a chain of several companies it might be even difficult to track everything.
Click to expand...

Depends on the original agreement.
 
Guys, FOSS patents = Florian Müller = paid Microsoft mouthpiece.

See for example http://iptarget.blogspot.com/2011/06/leverage-if-you-are-threatened-with.html . Title "Leverage If You Are Threatened with Patent Infringement (and why you should ignore FOSSpatents)" At the end of the article: "On a personal note, Florian accused me of being an "anonymous smearer". While I am doing this anonymously, my response still stands: "FYI rebutting factually inaccurate statements does not make me a "smearer", it makes you uninformed"."

ratzzo said:
There is something that irritates me, to see how giant companies (in this case, Apple) will always have advantage over subjects like these which are, in essence, proving the other side wrong. Apple has a lot of fanboys, and as evidenced by one of the first posts in this thread, people see Lodsys as the 'bad guy' when they are simply fighting for what they think is theirs.
Click to expand...

You should probably inform yourself about Lodsys and its patents. See for example http://www.applepatent.com/2011/06/lodsys-hints-from-file-history.html which shows prior art to Lodsys' patent.
 
Last edited:
ratzzo said:
There is something that irritates me, to see how giant companies (in this case, Apple) will always have advantage over subjects like these which are, in essence, proving the other side wrong. Apple has a lot of fanboys, and as evidenced by one of the first posts in this thread, people see Lodsys as the 'bad guy' when they are simply fighting for what they think is theirs.

Of course, the bigger company has no issue with this as they have the best lawyers and could very well put high bounties for prior acts. Mmm...
Click to expand...

Wow... sorry... these guys (Lodsys) are just patent trolls.

They only look to buy old patents and exploit them for money. These guys are evil to our industry.

I'm all for protecting your Patents, but I hate... really hate... patent trolls like Lodsys.

You have it backwards my friend.
 
vartanarsen said:
As "Iron-Clad" as we have all thought Apple Legal to be, how could they have signed their license agreement without redlining that clause and having it redrafted?
Click to expand...

IANAL, but I would guess that any company that licenses their patents, Apple included, have a clause that prevents them from challenging the validity of the patent. Lodsys is introducing a curious wrinkle in stating both Apple and the developers have to license their IP.

It seems an absurd position to take - it’s a bit like Toyota demanding a Ford Dealer pay them a license fee for the Hybrid engine in addition to the license fee Ford already paid.
 
Right, we're dealing with the lowest type of patent folks, the patent trolls. Do not feel sorry for Lodsys. They started this fight and are now squawking because people are fighting back. This tiny (one-man?) operation depends on people rolling over and paying up. If they fight, he loses.

We don't even know if the patents are valid yet, which is where all this prior art search is coming from. If the patents get invalidated, nobody owes anything. Which makes Mueller's initial comments on the subject ("devs should just pay and not fight this") so awful. He has no legal background (so it's absurd the way MacRumors keeps quoting him on this subject) and gave some terrible advice to developers.

Bottom line, let the law guys work on this, don't feel sorry for Lodsys (they started the fight), and don't take any legal advice whatsoever from FOSS Patents since his position is almost inevitably what Microsoft would want pushed. Who wants legal entanglements for FOSS (and Apple app) developers? Right, Microsoft.
 
0815 said:
Apple not being allowed to challenge the patent ... that stinks. Didn't know that license agreements can have a stupid clause like that - that should be illegal and every company should always have the right to challenge a patent, no matter if they pay a license fee or not
Click to expand...

if they thought the patent was invalid why would they license it. Doesn't make sense.

Apple has said that their original deal included the developers and thru are trying to get added to the cases so their lawyers (almost certainly at Apple's cost) will pled that issue.

Meanwhile other lawyers are pleading the 'it is a stupid patent' concern. Ones in fact that don't seem to have an invested interest in winning aside from the overall nature of the issue.
 
Popeye206 said:
It does... but in most cases, the OEM agreement would cover the buyer (i.e. GM in the example). It would be very rare that the license would not go with the device.
Click to expand...

Very true, though, with all these patents suits I am starting to realize companies now-a-days are looking to use patents as leverage.
 
if any of this info is correct than Lodsys has already broken the licensing agreement with Apple by going after the devs covered under Apple's license. This is why they attacked the devs and not Apple.
More than likely they will reach a settlement with not only Apple but other companies, which was probably their initial intent. Or they could possibly go broke before any of that happens.

either way,
bye bye greedy patent trolls...

Hopefully our lawmakers can reflect on this case and see the necessary changes that need to happen in the industry and why we need to do away with software patents.
 
Reggie Dunlop: I am personally placing a hundred-dollar bounty on the head of Tim McCracken. He's the head coach and chief punk on that Syracuse team.

Jim Carr: A bounty?

Reggie Dunlop: Yeah, a hundred bucks of my own money for the first of my guys who really nails that creep.
 
Software patents ---> stupid

I personally think software patent system needs a HUGE revamp.

I heard in some places (or all?) of Europe software patents are completely invalid.
???
 
0815 said:
from the article it looks like that apple is not allowed to challenge the validity due to the stupid license contract they have ...
Click to expand...

No, from the article it looks like Florian Müller is at it again spreading more nonsense.


charlituna said:
if they thought the patent was invalid why would they license it. Doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Apple licensed this patent as a part of a package deal. And knowing _now_ that it is invalid is not the same as knowing it years ago. It is now known that Lodsys has hidden prior art that mostly destroys their patent: Their invention is on a device giving user feedback to a server. The patent office found prior art about a CD jukebox that let users give feedback about the CDs to a server, so the inventor then claimed that the invention is about a device giving user feedback about the device itself to a server. Well, the device giving feedback is the iPhone. So the only thing that _could_ be covered would be an app that lets the user give feedback about the phone to a server.
 
Last edited:
Stok3 said:
if any of this info is correct than Lodsys has already broken the licensing agreement with Apple by going after the devs covered under Apple's license. This is why they attacked the devs and not Apple.
More than likely they will reach a settlement with not only Apple but other companies, which was probably their initial intent. Or they could possibly go broke before any of that happens.

either way,
bye bye greedy patent trolls...

Hopefully our lawmakers can reflect on this case and see the necessary changes that need to happen in the industry and why we need to do away with software patents.
Click to expand...

Then what would the incentive be for developing software?
 
charlituna said:
if they thought the patent was invalid why would they license it. Doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Apple (and everyone else in the industry) has probably licensed hundreds of patents that in their opinion are invalid. But it comes to a question of ROI. Invalidating a patent requires litigation, and generally litigation costs more than license fees.
 
kwfergy said:
Then what would the incentive be for developing software?
Click to expand...

it would require constant innovation and real competition as opposed to sitting on tech patents that are common in our modern devices (i.e. pinch to zoom, multitouch, in app purchases.) The incentive would obviously be profits for the companies and a higher standard of quality for consumers. Over all its better for everyone.
 
kwfergy said:
Then what would the incentive be for developing software?
Click to expand...

You clearly know nothing about software development. It is what I do for a living. Patents are a curse on software development. Copyright protection means that nobody can steal the software that I create, and I cannot steal the software that others make. Patents however mean that someone can sue _me_ for the software that _I_ wrote. Patents mean that scumbags like Lodsys with patents that are written as vague as possible, with the intent to do nothing useful but to catch out software developers, companies that never, ever have produced anything useful, can extract money from hardworking software developers.
 
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