Lodsys Responds to Apple, Files Lawsuits Against App Developers

[cmaier]

What I find amazing is all the people on this thread calling Lodsys scum and wanting them dead for "picking on the little guy" yet Apple going after a teenager for selling some white iPhone parts is simply Apple protecting their IP.

Certainly Apple think the patents are valid or they wouldn't have licensed them. Even in Apple's letter, not once was the validity of the patents questioned, it was simply whether the developers fell under the license Apple obtained.

More likely Lodsys asked for a 5-figure or low 6-figure license, and apple decided to pay it rather than pay lawyers 6-figures to fight it. companies license patents every day despite believing them to be invalid, because it's too expensive to fight every battle in court. Patentholders know this, and thus they often ask for a small enough sum of money to prevent the accused infringer from fighting.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Yep, exactly the same situation isn't it?

Apple the patent troll is suing Samsung's app developers.

Nothing whatsoever to do with ripping off a company's products...

You must be so proud to be able to smugly point that out to us all.

Actually, under law, it's EXACTLY the same situation. Those developers are ripping off a feature that Lodsys holds the patent to and not paying for it. How is that ANY different than what Samsung is allegedly doing to Apple other than it being software rather than hardware?

You could make the argument that software patents are stupid in general and I would probably agree, but the law doesn't see it that way and even if they did, Samsung would get off the hook too because the ONLY thing they did was rip-off the appearance of the iOS products. Internally, they are not remotely the same thing. They do not run iOS. They do not run Apple software. The similarities are merely skin-deep. They fall under abstract GUI layout patents, which IMO are 10x worse than a software patent. If they were a valid form of patent, every car maker on earth would be in trouble for ripping off the looks of other car makers these days because MOST cars look and have features like other cars (e.g. Mazda ripped off Subaru's turbo-wagon WRX with the CX-7 and Subaru ripped off Mazda in '08 with the rear-end that looks like a Mazda on the hatchback. Lexus did the same thing with the rear-end on the RX (even the freaking names with RX/WRX/CX sound similar). Musicians re-use chord changes all the time (there's only so many to go around for pop and rock style music). If they could patent a chord change, music would be DEAD (well OK, some might say it is these days.... ).

Frak the whole system. It stifles innovation (try to make a product that doesn't use hyperlinks on the Net) and leads to endless lawsuits. What the hell happened to products standing on their own merits and letting the consumer decide?

 

[cmaier]

Actually, under law, it's EXACTLY the same situation. Those developers are ripping off a feature that Lodsys holds the patent to and not paying for it. How is that ANY different than what Samsung is allegedly doing to Apple other than it being software rather than hardware?

One major difference is that Lodsys is a "Non-Practicing Entity" ("NPE," or "troll"). This changes the legal contours. Indeed, the difference is recognized under the law - NPE's, for example, can almost never get an injunction. There are other differences as well.

For example, if Apple sues Samsung, Samsung can counter-sue Apple because Apple has its own products it sells, and thus might be infringing Samsung's patents/trademarks. As a result, you can bet Apple thinks more carefully before filing suit, because it knows a counter-suit is coming so its own case had better be pretty good. When an NPE sues, it doesn't have to worry about this. As long as it can come up with some good faith argument for infringement that passes the "laugh test," that's good enough - the other party can't counter-sue because the NPE can't possibly be infringing anything.

Another difference is that Apple and Samsung are generally aware of what each other are doing. They have reason to know about each other's patents because they are competitors, and when they see each other's products and they see some feature they haven't seen before, they have good reason to look into whether there is a patent involved, and thus they can avoid these patents. With an NPE, there is no product that serves as a warning that something is patented. There is just some (often nebulous) patent that the accused infringer undoubtedly doesn't even know exists.

Yet another difference is that NPE's almost always hire contingency lawyers - they don't have to pay their lawyers unless they get something in the suit. This leads to patent strategies designed to force an early settlement (so the contingency lawyers don't have to work too hard for their money and actually turn a profit) regardless of the merits, including suing as many entities as possible and asking for "nuisance value." This is not usually the case when competitors sue.

 

[jacollins]

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. ;-)

What?

Dungeons and Dragons reference. Trolls can regenerate their health. The more common way of stopping that and killing them once and for all is with fire or acid.

 

[aristotle]

Forget 1000 bucks, patent trolls that lose their case should be force to commit seppuku. It would be the only honourable thing to do. It would also clean up the gene pool and prevent future lawsuits from the trolls.

 

[old-wiz]

I never realized how easy it was to get sued developing software using Apple provided or required tools. I'm glad I am out of that business.

 

[jackryan]

A direct quote from Lodsys' site:

http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/0...g-system-vendors-or-device-manufacturers.html

"As an extended metaphor, in the hotel example, no one would expect the architect to not be paid, or for the nails to come for free. They get paid some subset of the overall value, but they get paid for their contribution to the solution under an agreement they have with the hotel owner. "

Using their own analogy, Lodsys is acting like the architect of the hotel attempting to extract payment from each hotel guest for the structure they enjoy, despite the fact that the hotel company already paid the architect for the plans. Do they really believe this to be reasonable?

 

[ViviUO]

Troll Lawyers need to be given the death penalty.

As they say in Texas, given a Texan any reason to shoot and he'll do it.

Watch out. I wished harm upon the *******s at lodsys and some self righteous, way-too-easily-offended lodsys supporter got my posts removed.

 

[ssk2]

Jesus H. Christ... Why are people getting SO ANGRY about this?

Let Lodsys take it through the courts, if they have a case then the courts will recognise that. If they don't (and that's my opinion right now), then they'll get thrown out and Apple/whoever will have a VERY good chance to counter-claim.

Some of the angst and emotion is ridiculous for what is essentially a company taking a risky legal move. Some of you need to grow up - its not like Lodsys have harmed your families.

 

[cmaier]

Watch out. I wished harm upon the *******s at lodsys and some self righteous, way-too-easily-offended lodsys supporter got my posts removed.

You wished physical harm on someone because you disapprove of his business model? It might be you who is too easily offended.

 

[marmiteturkey]

I am very surprised by the replies in the forum.

When Apple targets people for copyright and trademark infringements, they are supported in droves; as they should be.

But a company feels that their contract is violated and they are being assaulted by comments here.

If they company is right, I hope they take Apple to the bank, and vice versa.

I think this company maybe be right, or they have an exceptional poker face.

You need to understand the facts of the case. Lodsys bought the patents from someone else (who wasn't interested in suing app developers, and has since stated that he disapproves of what Lodsys are doing) specifically so they could attempt to do this. They did no work; they invented nothing; they are owed nothing; they are patent trolls in the purest sense. They spotted a patent that wasn't being enforced by its owner, and went for it, believing it was easy money (and they have the barefaced nerve to post a quote from Edison, a true inventor, about hard work on their crappy homepage!).

I hope Apple take Mark Small for every penny he's got.

A direct quote from Lodsys' site:

http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/0...g-system-vendors-or-device-manufacturers.html

"As an extended metaphor, in the hotel example, no one would expect the architect to not be paid, or for the nails to come for free. They get paid some subset of the overall value, but they get paid for their contribution to the solution under an agreement they have with the hotel owner. "

Using their own analogy, Lodsys is acting like the architect of the hotel attempting to extract payment from each hotel guest for the structure they enjoy, despite the fact that the hotel company already paid the architect for the plans. Do they really believe this to be reasonable?

In fact, it's like Lodsys paying the real architect of the hotel for the right to say they designed it, and THEN trying to extract payment for every hotel built since. They're not even architects!

 

[newfoundglory]

Yes, they are a patent troll, but you can't blame them for trying.

With all the money and lawyers that Apple would have access to - remember people joked about Microsoft's lawyers in the 90's and 00's - they shouldn't have trouble (eventually) getting a good result if they sue Lodsys.

But I think Apple, like Lodsys, should move quickly and kick off the process.

The biggest problem is for devs - Apple vs. Lodsys is NOT the happy place for developers. The uncertainty. Not a happy place at all. And that could cause Apple some damage; maybe Apple could even sue for the current damage - $50 million maybe?

But the Lodsys vs App Maker cases might at least be put on hold by the courts waiting the outcome of Apple vs. Lodsys.

 

[ViviUO]

I wonder how much many of the posters' attitudes would change if THEY were the patent owners:

"Sir, your third cousin, twice removed just died and left you a base patent on click-to-upgrade. Apple and other major companies have already licensed it, so there's no dispute that it's valid."

"Wow! That's an incredible inheritance! But isn't everyone using this invention nowadays?"

"Yes sir, that's why it's worth millions. It's as if you had a patent on multi-touch or something."

"Hmm. Well, I don't want to be called a patent troll, so to heck with my family, let's give it away for free!"

The point is that their patents shouldn't be patents to begin with.

Also, I doubt anyone here gives a **** about Lodsys or their family members.

Now lets look at it from another perspective.

"Hey! I just created an App and I am making a living off of it! Finally I can live a comfortable life. But what's this? Some ass is suing me for using a button in my app? But buttons, menus, etc. have been around since the beginning of the GUI! Looks like I can't do this anymore."

So tell me, what does the world gain when we support the actions of scumbags like Lodsys?

 

[kdarling]

The point is that their patents shouldn't be patents to begin with.

Hindsight is wonderful.

Also, I doubt anyone here gives a **** about Lodsys or their family members.

You care about your own. If you bought a patent potentially worth millions, what would you do with it? Nothing? If so, perhaps I could interest you in some worthless patents as well, since you'd make the same off them.

"Hey! I just created an App and I am making a living off of it! Finally I can live a comfortable life. But what's this? Some ass is suing me for using a button in my app? But buttons, menus, etc. have been around since the beginning of the GUI! Looks like I can't do this anymore."

Don't oversimplify. They're not suing over just any button.

Don't be overdramatic about the effect on your life, either, since they're charging less than 1/2 cent on a 99 cent app. Compared to what Apple charges, it's nothing.

For that matter, your complaints sound like those who claim that software developers shouldn't charge fees either, since they're not selling a physical product, and are "just making free money from people". Sound familiar?

So tell me, what does the world gain when we support the actions of scumbags like Lodsys?

Am I supporting them? No. Am I calling for them to be shot, like some of the immature posters around here? No, not that either.

Personally, I think Apple and/or the developers involved, are going to have to fight and try to get the patent dissolved.

 

[FroMann]

Other then get attention I have no idea what the lawsuits are for.

 

[fattire357]

It shows. Most patents, especially in the software world, are what has been called "sub-prime patents". The idea behind patents is not that the inventor should get payments, the idea is that the inventor publishes his invention (so that the world can benefit from it) in exchange for a temporary monopoly on the invention. This good idea has been completely perverted. People create patents that are as vague as possible, so nobody can understand what they actually say, including the inventor, with the sole purpose of suing people who fall into the trap of doing something that is matched by the patent. The point is: Nobody wants this invention. Nobody needs it. It doesn't help anyone. Apple and all the iPhone developers have never, ever looked at the patent and used it to find out how to do something. I actually don't know of one single case where someone in the software industry extracted useful information from a patent that helped them building something. The amount of work in the "invention" is minuscule compared to the amount of work that is needed to actually create a working product.

Summary: Patents have values not by representing and protecting inventions, but by giving someone the tools to extort money from the people who actually create products. So actually, taking that patent and shoving it up their **** would be much more fair.

thanks for the info

 

[fattire357]

You need to understand the facts of the case. Lodsys bought the patents from someone else (who wasn't interested in suing app developers, and has since stated that he disapproves of what Lodsys are doing) specifically so they could attempt to do this. They did no work; they invented nothing; they are owed nothing; they are patent trolls in the purest sense. They spotted a patent that wasn't being enforced by its owner, and went for it, believing it was easy money (and they have the barefaced nerve to post a quote from Edison, a true inventor, about hard work on their crappy homepage!).

It's too bad that in this world that information will bear no significance on who actually wins in the courtroom.

 

[D4F]

Well... what if apple orchestrated the whole thing? SJ will look Godly on stage being tuff and stating how apple will save it's developers and 15 seconds later new iOS5 talk will pop up.

 

[cmaier]

Other then get attention I have no idea what the lawsuits are for.

They are for money.

 

[FroMann]

They are for money.

I think they are going to lose more rather than gain.

 

[cmaier]

I think they are going to lose more rather than gain.

How, exactly? It seems to me the worst that happens is a court finds that Apple's license covers the 3rd party developers. Or maybe a court invalidates the patent. But how exactly does Lodsys, which doubtless hired its lawyers on contingency, lose money?

 

[MattInOz]

A direct quote from Lodsys' site:

http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/0...g-system-vendors-or-device-manufacturers.html

"As an extended metaphor, in the hotel example, no one would expect the architect to not be paid, or for the nails to come for free. They get paid some subset of the overall value, but they get paid for their contribution to the solution under an agreement they have with the hotel owner. "

Using their own analogy, Lodsys is acting like the architect of the hotel attempting to extract payment from each hotel guest for the structure they enjoy, despite the fact that the hotel company already paid the architect for the plans. Do they really believe this to be reasonable?

Ummm.... but Architecture is under copyright, if we release the plans(copies) for building to start without some solid backing of Cash or enforceable credit agreement then our payment might as well be toast. We don't have much say in the use of the copy beyond that, unless someone copies the Architecture for profit.

At most the only action an Architect could take against the hotel would be stop them using professional photos in promotion of the Hotel. Guests are users of the building they don't produce anything copyright law considers a copy.

Patents are licenses for Implementations if that isn't different to Copies then why have two sets of law.

So I don't know if analogies involving anything other than Patent IP are even relevant. I don't think there any direct link other than the code Apple used to Implement the Patent is covered by copyright. I would have but that copyright property (pixie dust) would remain Apples to license under copyright as long as it only dealt with validly licensed implementation.

 

[wackymacky]

Why bother? It'd be cheaper for Apple to just buy Lodsys outright.

It would aslo be cheaper to have the whole bord of Lodsys taken out back and shot.

Now that might be a fine idea, and I woudn't complain if $1.00 of each iMac/iPad this year went into such a fund.

 

[qtx43]

Using their own analogy, Lodsys is acting like the architect of the hotel attempting to extract payment from each hotel guest for the structure they enjoy, despite the fact that the hotel company already paid the architect for the plans. Do they really believe this to be reasonable?

Probably they do think just that. People can rationalize just about anything when easy money is involved. And now matter how stupid the vast majority of all software patents are, they still get granted as valid patents, and people still make money off of them. Which I expect will continue unless the law is changed (good luck with that).

 

[Blu Reel]

As I understand it, Lodsys, the patent holder is suing the 3rd party developers for using Lodsys' patented technology within the developers apps and to be clear, it's usage for one developer (if not all the developers) is in the in-app upgrade button.

So, if they "win" this lawsuit, wouldn't Lodsys then be able to sue every consumer that clicks on that upgrade button for using that patented technology without first setting up a licensing agreement with Lodsys? No? Ahh yes, the developer is incorporating the patented technology into their product to sell to the end-user. Ok so that's clear...

But,

If Lodsys wins this lawsuit, wouldn't that mean a company such as Intel, could now sue every PC builder/modder who resells these custom built PCs for not contacting Intel first and establish a license for using any motherboard that uses any Intel chipset that comes soldered onto the motherboard by the motherboard manufacturer not including the CPU? It's assumed that you paid for the CPU chip directly and therefore any licensing fee is included that purchase.

For example, any USB equipped motherboard whether it's made by Asus, Acer, Gigabyte, Dell(?), HP(?), Apple(Foxconn?) and so on, that's used to build a PC and then resold, the builder of these PCs is supposed to, according to Lodsys, contact the patent owner (license owner) of USB (Intel originally and the USB org now) and set up and pay for a separate license, even though the USB technology has been incorporated into a larger piece of technology (the motherboard) and the license paid for by the motherboard manufacturer.

Is it really the problem of the 3rd party developer that Intel or the USB org didn't negotiate a better deal with the motherboard manufacturers?

And yes, my "doomsday" threat is that any individual who builds a custom computer for someone else and gets paid something to do so, the onus is on the builder to contact all the patent holders who have a patented technology that's used in building a motherboard or a hard drive or even a memory card and work out a license agreement or face litigation by any of these patent holders. Anyone know who owns the patent for PCIe, Sata, 1000baseT, solder, 1/8" plug, digital audio, ASCII, or motherboard spacer screws? Anyone know which of these previous items are not applicable to the scenario that Lodsys is claiming? Only people who build motherboards know.

I don't pretend to know what the law states in this matter, but it seems to me that the onus is on the patent holders and the motherboard manufacturers to work out their licensing agreements and NOT the patent holders and the "developers" using these motherboards.