I'm willing to bet that there will be a decent presence of Apple Legal at WWDC just because of this.
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 Responds to Apple, Files Lawsuits Against App Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm willing to bet that there will be a decent presence of Apple Legal at WWDC just because of this.
Just some info on the process inside an app:
- App asks Apples servers for available products
- App shows products to user
- User chooses product
- App tells Apple's framework inside of app that the user would like to buy product X
- Apple's framework COMPLETELY takes over to ask customer if he wants to buy product X. The app has NO control of this! Only Apple's framework is at work here.
- If user accepts, framework tells App that user did accept and App can unlock bought feature.
The whole process of buying is though Apple's code and servers. The App (and its developer) itself has NO way to interact with the customer.
The App is just told that anyone bought some product. Nothing more.
- App asks Apples servers for available products
- App shows products to user
- User chooses product
- App tells Apple's framework inside of app that the user would like to buy product X
- Apple's framework COMPLETELY takes over to ask customer if he wants to buy product X. The app has NO control of this! Only Apple's framework is at work here.
- If user accepts, framework tells App that user did accept and App can unlock bought feature.
The whole process of buying is though Apple's code and servers. The App (and its developer) itself has NO way to interact with the customer.
The App is just told that anyone bought some product. Nothing more.
I'm sure they have a plan. This isn't the silly Apple that basically gave Microsoft the mac UI. Hopefully, that progress includes a way to help iOS developers because we could lose a lot of good iOS developers from this.
Finally someone is willing to stand up to Apple's bullying.
I hope Lodsys prevails, for the sake of free market capitalism.
I hope Lodsys prevails, for the sake of free market capitalism.
LOL!!!! They do, and you won't.
The Lodsys patent trolls are about to be slayed by Apple's +5 Bastard Sword of Flame. This should prevent their regeneration. ;-)
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)
Nice try.
juicedropsdeuce said:
Nice try.
Do you really believe that all patent infringement positions and related lawsuits are of equal merit, and that it's an "all or none" premise?
Seriously? Lodsys is using their patents in a manner that will kill the market.
Frankly, I hope Apple reaches out to developers before WWDC. We'll see how on the ball Apple is about this. I'm willing to bet they're pretty on the ball now that they had the initial 10 day response turn around/I doubt they assumed Lodsys would just go away.
IANAL, but the judge is going to be pissed that they didn't give the developers enough time to negotiate, ie Lodsys jumped the gun. And Apple is joined in the law suite. Apple has publicly said that the developers are covered. That makes Apple involved. The problem, and Lodsys knows this, the developers will need to hire a lawyer to file the motions, to get it dismissed so they can negotiate, or file to have Apple representatives clarify how the developers are protected. I'm guessing they are suing now before the developers get a chance to talk with Apple at WWDC. It's a shake down, and it only works if the victim is scared.
The problem is Apple is already validating some of their patents by licensing them from Lodsys. The most Apple can do is claim the patents are already licensed by Apple and thus don't need to be licensed by app developers.
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)
I think Lodsys must not have a very good relationship with their own lawyers. No lawyer is going to advise them to offer $1,000 if they are wrong.
That's crazy!
I think Lodsys must not have a very good relationship with their own lawyers. No lawyer is going to advise them to offer $1,000 if they are wrong.
That's crazy!
Lodsys wasn't even involved in the original licensing agreement. The timeline is more:
- Apple licenses patent pool from company A.
- Lodsys buys company A's patents.
- Lodsys doesn't get any money from Apple's license and is trying to monetize the patents they bought.
My first thought (back when this all first started) was, "why does a patent troll have a PR department that cares what normal people think?"
Seriously, why is Lodsys spending so much time and money explaining themselves with cheap PR tricks? It comes across even more scummy than if they had no public statements at all. How stupid does Lodsys think we are that we'll think $1000 will pay for a lawyer (one that any smart developer got the instant Lodsys threatened them)? If Lodsys knows where to get good Lawyers that will work for $1000 for a few weeks of work, wow.
The big question is how (if?) Apple will protect its developers. A legal conflict between Apple and Lodsys doesn't protect the developer. I imagine this will be a lively topic of conversation at WWDC.
It would be good if Apple paid for a team of their top lawyers to represent the developers in court and rip these frivolous lawsuits to pieces.
This is all about wanting to get their entire portfolio bought outright.
Do the math on their proposed licensing fees and put it in the App Market context.
It would be absolutely impossible for them even know if you have a profitable App. Apple would never allow them to have access to your gross sales figures.
Just because you have an app with In App upgrade doesn't mean you are making any real money. They would be relying on one or two man shops to be truthful to them, and even if that were the case bring in absolute chump change from their asking percentage.
They want their patents bought outright and this is their weasel way of doing it. It seems to me they are going after the highest bidder approach i.e. Apple or Google by targeting the weakest link(s) in both systems, 3rd party developers.
The problem then becomes do we really want Apple or Google owning these bogus patents either?
This is one guy with two or three lawyers and an LLC betting the whole farm on this as his payday.
If he wins he is persona non grata in the tech world, and no one will ever do business with him again, but be extremely wealthy and will not care.
If he loses he is persona non grata in the tech world, no one will ever do business with him again and he will be bankrupt.
Do the math on their proposed licensing fees and put it in the App Market context.
It would be absolutely impossible for them even know if you have a profitable App. Apple would never allow them to have access to your gross sales figures.
Just because you have an app with In App upgrade doesn't mean you are making any real money. They would be relying on one or two man shops to be truthful to them, and even if that were the case bring in absolute chump change from their asking percentage.
They want their patents bought outright and this is their weasel way of doing it. It seems to me they are going after the highest bidder approach i.e. Apple or Google by targeting the weakest link(s) in both systems, 3rd party developers.
The problem then becomes do we really want Apple or Google owning these bogus patents either?
This is one guy with two or three lawyers and an LLC betting the whole farm on this as his payday.
If he wins he is persona non grata in the tech world, and no one will ever do business with him again, but be extremely wealthy and will not care.
If he loses he is persona non grata in the tech world, no one will ever do business with him again and he will be bankrupt.
That isn't quite how it works. A patent can be ruled invalid no matter what happened in the past between the two parties. If the patent is invalid, it is invalid, "validated" by the market or not. Especially in the case of licenses covering a pool of patents.
Also, keep in mind Lodsys is a new player here. The license wasn't between Apple and Lodsys, but Apple and the original patent owners. Lodsys at this point is just inheriting the license, and obviously doesn't seem to think it means what the previous owners think it means. My guess is that they want to monetize their patents to get return on their investment.
You don't hire lawyers. You pay Lodsys for their valid patent and if Apple prevails, you get your money back + $1000. Why fight something if Apple is going to fight it for you? I'd be protecting my butt from fines first and worrying about the outcome later.
I do find it strange that Lodsys has only filed claims against 7 developers. I mean what is that? Target only those developers you think you can a lot of money/sales out of? Certainly there must be more than 7 people using the demo/upgrade system? It seems to me if they sue one on those grounds, they should have to sue them all or there's some kind of discrimination going on. Why should one developer get off scott free while another is sued? The whole thing reeks of easy money, but like I've said before, I'm 100% against ALL "software patents". I think they should fall only under copyright law. Patents should be reserved for physical inventions, not abstract ideas and GUI layouts.