Except the patent is not about IAP. It's much broader than that and developers not even using IAP are receiving notice.
Simply having a screen that says "Did you like this app ? buy the full version on the App Store by touching here!" is sufficient.
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 Controversy Over Lawsuit Threats
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except the patent is not about IAP. It's much broader than that and developers not even using IAP are receiving notice.
Simply having a screen that says "Did you like this app ? buy the full version on the App Store by touching here!" is sufficient.
Nope. It just shows they are an unprofessional company who steals food from the mouths of indie developers. What they are doing would be like me suing someone who runs a greeting card business because the ink you used to print your cards (that you bought from HP) is patented.
I'm sure they will but something like this will take time to research by the legal team to put together an official response.
On a side note I think Lodsys should be able to be sued for harassment (even though I don't agree with suing for harassment in most cases) and maybe they would learn to stop bullying little guys for no reason.
To me it looks like they are trying to er... 'encourage' Apple to make them an offer in order to get a license for all developers of iOS. I guess it depends very much on what the exact terms of any license Apple has paid for amount to, but if I were Apple and had paid these trolls once already, I'd be very annoyed when they try to go after individual developers, for whatever reason.
I hope Apple squishes them. In the legal sense I mean, they are at least correct that death threats are always seriously uncool, even if scaring small developers could be described in exactly the same way. I do think Apple should get involved, it will harm iOS' image if developers are left high and dry.
I hope Apple squishes them. In the legal sense I mean, they are at least correct that death threats are always seriously uncool, even if scaring small developers could be described in exactly the same way. I do think Apple should get involved, it will harm iOS' image if developers are left high and dry.
Don't blame the patent trolls for a broken patent system. Could have been fixed long ago but no one has had the political scrotum to do so. So lets enjoy the histrionics its after all so much fun watching as well as paying for it.
Um, the scrotum is just the sack of skin that contain the testicles. You could have a scrotum but no balls.
Looking at all the lawsuits between all the players, I think they should all get together and lobby for patent reform.
To have a patent extend to over 20 years in the technology field with not even one attempt to create a product for it is stone age philosophy.
I hope they will just put a button there saying: "more info at the app store"
Are they targeting only small fry?
Wonder if they have/will target big name publishers like Time, Conde Nast, Hearst, etc. or just the small, indie app developers. Perhaps subscriptions don't fall under the patent in question, even though they use the same underlying IAP system. However, with the uproar over Apple's 30% cut I doubt publishers would willingly give up another slice without a fight, no matter how small.
Wonder if they have/will target big name publishers like Time, Conde Nast, Hearst, etc. or just the small, indie app developers. Perhaps subscriptions don't fall under the patent in question, even though they use the same underlying IAP system. However, with the uproar over Apple's 30% cut I doubt publishers would willingly give up another slice without a fight, no matter how small.
I love all of the "patent troll" trolls that pop up every time there is a story regarding patents.
Yea, these guys are scumbags.
Greedy actions imply greedy people. Greedy actions that are defended as "necessary" and "efficient" imply greedy people who are also too cowardly to admit their wrongdoings.
Greedy? I guess according to you and your socialist ideology a person is not allowed to make a living in any legal way they can.
Indeed, this is utterly pathetic. I have a hard time understanding how US citizens still accept this absurdly abstruse patent system which does nothing else than STIFLE innovation across the board.
Alas, Lodsys should be countersued to bankruptcy, nothing less - I truly hope developers band together and demolish this ridiculously frivolous case.
I don't have a problem with the legality of what they're doing, though that could easily be argued as well. I simply have a problem with the ethics surrounding the way they're making their money.
The solution to this insanity is to write your congressional representatives and get them to repeal software patents. The whole patent business is seriously out of wack with reality. Patents should not be granted for software, life and a lot of the other junk that is getting through the patent office. All of these patents should be retroactively cancelled.
I'm Not a legal expert. Does this affect me as an iOS developer based in Europe as well? I do have an app in the US app store. Any ideas concerning this?
Wait a minute, what's that 30% for???
Apple's 30% should cover this 0.5..% cost that Lodsys wants. I mean c'mon Apple we're using your platform and you already paid for the patent from Lodsys and for what? Does Apple make much apps no!
So Apple's 30% should cover this, or the developers should start to sue Apple for not stating that some services developers use are patented!!!!!
Deflect this to Apple guys, they'll solve this mess, they have enough money to toss at it.
Apple's 30% should cover this 0.5..% cost that Lodsys wants. I mean c'mon Apple we're using your platform and you already paid for the patent from Lodsys and for what? Does Apple make much apps no!
So Apple's 30% should cover this, or the developers should start to sue Apple for not stating that some services developers use are patented!!!!!
Deflect this to Apple guys, they'll solve this mess, they have enough money to toss at it.
I'd like to know how Angry Birds / Rovio managed this. I'm sure they've made more than a few bucks off of the upgrade scheme.
Hmmm.... Is there a difference between having 1 application that is free and unlocking it's full potential
and...
having 1 application that is free and linking an advertisement to the app store to buy a new 2nd application that is not free?
Hmmm.... Is there a difference between having 1 application that is free and unlocking it's full potential
and...
having 1 application that is free and linking an advertisement to the app store to buy a new 2nd application that is not free?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Apple would license this for their own apps to have the upgrade option.
It it not double dipping unless Apple owns all apps. Thus, the Apple license would cover this feature within Apple-owned apps. All the other app companies that sell apps would need their own license if the patent issue at hand is enforceable.
At 4 pages & counting now, it seems the crowd is enormously against protecting the intellectual rights of this company, the patent system is broken and needs fixing, and so on. I find it hilarious that when it's Apple on the prosecuting end of such things how some of these same posters post how they hope Apple socks it to whoever they are going after, how important it is for Apple's intellectual property to be protected, how wrong it is for others to encroach upon Apples intellectual property, etc.
It's great that Apple is trying to leverage patent claims against the likes of Samsung, Kodak, even small players who make (much cheaper for us consumers) products like mag connectors, but it's absolutely wrong when the same patent system works the other way... either against Apple or even developers on Apple's platform.
Pick a side boys. Be consistent.
I'm in the camp that most- if not all- such software should not be patentable at all. They should be copyrighted at best. Else, eventually, a few big companies will own so many patents on how to do everything in software that small company software innovation won't have the legal resources to even come to market.
Patents should be truly innovative concepts (though how to judge the line in such a statement is always the problem with it).
No "defensive" patents should exist, meaning if you patent it, it better come to market in a reasonable period of time (the owner had better be able to illustrate steady, rapid progress of getting it to market). Patenting (or buying up patents) with the goal to keep some innovation from coming to market should convert all of those patents to public domain. This move alone would solve a number of the modern problems our planet faces, as well as reduce the number of patent applications.
The scenario that facilitates the existence of patent trolls should be wiped away. Patent holders must either bring their patents to market ASAP, license their products to promptly come to market or lose their patents to public domain. This would discourage patenting for only the intention of blocking others from bringing the same/similar to market, and/or raising prices of products by drawing licenses out of others.
Assuming there are some cures (for illnesses) that have been backed down to 1-a-day treatments, anyone who can turn a treatment into a permanent cure should gain ownership of a big share of the original patent. That would kill conspiracies about cures being kept locked away because forever treatments are more profitable.
And so on.
Back to this particular thing, while I can side with the crowd here against these apparent patent trolls, we should all feel very similar when it's Apple sicking it's patent lawyers on others to squeeze licensing revenue out of them too. I know that for many Apple can do no wrong- even when it ends up costing (even) ourselves more money in the end- it is hypocritical to take this stance when it doesn't favor something associated with Apple, but then flip flop when Apple is the one initiating the attack.
Apple isn't going to get involved. This only affects a couple small time devs, it's hardly worth the trouble. Their apps probably suck anyways.
Well, that's the interesting angle in this battle.
Are companies like Rovio Mobile going to be ignored? I think that's a big argument against Lodsys. If Rovio isn't going to be expected to pay, as Angry Birds has in-app purchases, then why should other developers pay? If Rovio is expected to pay, then there's a company large enough to fight this matter legally.
If the patent is legitimately applicable to in-app purchases, then a deal should be worked out with Apple. It should automatically be processed through iTunes Connect. If Apple is interested in protecting developers, they could make this happen. Apple could even eat the 0.575%, as they currently get 30% from in-app purchases. It seems like it's in Apple's interest to resolve this issue.
I don't use in-app purchases in my apps, so I'm not involved. But since a large amount of developers are involved, couldn't they team up and fight this matter legally?
...agreed. it's a silly thought that using "seriously uncool" is anything more than a weak attempt to be a hipster in jargon. falling for that only assumes the reader is:
1. way outside of anything close to cool( which lodys probably assumes computer users are) and wouldn't know it if it bit him/her;
2. someone (which i assume lodys assumes most computer people are) who feels a touch of "human-ness" in using such a word.
On the other hand, maybe the writer for lodys is an aging lawyer who heard his teenage son saying "cool" but didn't hear the rest of the sentence...."cool is somethin' my granpa would say, and my pops would say cool is "so jump the shark"
Simple calculation: $ value of apps sold with IAP. Likely percent of voluntary compliance by publishers X $ share. Cost of pursuing non compliant publishers for 4-figure fees...
Apple should step up and do a sub-license deal for any app publisher dealing through iTunes or App store and let the competing marketplaces try to cut their own deals or let Lodsys go after those publishers for that share of revenue.
Makes Apple the good guy in this scenario, and gives them a competitive advantage. Chances they'll step up: nil.
Apple should step up and do a sub-license deal for any app publisher dealing through iTunes or App store and let the competing marketplaces try to cut their own deals or let Lodsys go after those publishers for that share of revenue.
Makes Apple the good guy in this scenario, and gives them a competitive advantage. Chances they'll step up: nil.
