Sidebar Sidebar
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

Great Analogy

I actually really like the analogy...so, Apple builds the "hotel" on "land" they leased from Lodsys, so people can rent "rooms" (presumably the app developers). Do I have this right...

I have stayed in hotels (app developer) and I have never paid the land holder (Lodsys) directly...I pay the hotel (Apple)!

Lodsys' clever analogy is not only poorly constructed, it plays against them!

Hey Lodsys, check with your legal department BEFORE you post your explanations...I think you just shot yourself in the foot!

DiscFreak
 
So what we have here is:

A patent system that has large incentives to grab licenses cheaply. It's exactly like a gold rush.

Few disincentives to hoard patents along with little incentive to develop ideas.

Something that Apple should have seen coming and crushed. Individual licence deals are not plausible or in any way consistent with the developer, user or Apple's interest.
 
BRLawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Laughable.

The patent system is the reason why America is currently #1 and will remain #1.
 
dustinsc said:
+1 The "patent trolls" are just exploiting the system, and some have a legitimate purpose. The system tends to give out broad patents or grant patents to seemingly un-patentable ideas.
Click to expand...

So if something currently is legal lets just ignore any moral standards.
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
I'm surprised that someone hasn't come out with a patent on clickable onscreen buttons...
Click to expand...

RCA had a patent on the stuff needed to draw a button on a bitmap display. Apple and everybody else paid. That patent expired long ago.

People working at SRI invented the mouse, and thus the clicking of buttons on that mouse... circa 1968. Another set of patents that everybody, including Apple, paid royalties on.

So someone beat you to the punch long long ago.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
...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.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think it's that cut-and-dried. The anger here is because it's a ridiculous patent that should never have been granted. Sure, the ire should be directed at the patent system itself but if air was free and you discovered that someone owned the patent on breathing you'd be angry not just at the system but also at the company cashing in and sending you threatening letters. Most of Apple, Nokia, Kodat et al's claims are based around some degree of innovation. The tide has turned against these trolls because the patent is not the kind of thing (I don't believe) that Apple would patent, let alone chase.

Others have already stated the 'patently' obvious. Stick an advert in instead.

Which, of course, is why Lodsys have waited a while and are claiming on back-sales.
 
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 have patented a method of accessing data elements in a set using an iterative looping technology
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
Well it was nice of Apple to lay this on everyone's feet and not at least warn them of the implications of using this patented technology.
Click to expand...
Well, if you read all of Lodsys' crap blog posts, one is interesting and speaks volumes to me:

One blogger suggested that an OS or device vendor or retailer could choose to contact Lodsys and purchase a license on behalf of its application ecosystem, but so far such discussions haven’t taken place.​

It seems that Lodsys just wants to get paid and would be happy for Apple to just pony up to the bargaining table and just buy it outright for their customers. With Apple's deep pockets, I think they should consider it and take this burden off of everyone from here on out.
 
According to a thread in the developer forums the IAP checkboxes are missing for people submitting apps.

It sucks for those who are about to release and app but at least Apple is keeping potential lawsuits away from those devs while this mess gets sorted out.
 
KnightWRX said:
This really isn't about In App Purchase. It's about Apps (especially LITE or DEMOs) offering the user a button to "upgrade" to the full app. When that button is pressed, the user is sent back to the App Store, to the proper page. No IAP required.
Click to expand...

Technically, this is a 'cross sale' rather than an 'upgrade', though, since they are treated as 2 apps in the App Store and are installed separately (installing one won't replace the other).
 
JGowan said:
Well, if you read all of Lodsys' crap blog posts, one is interesting and speaks volumes to me:

One blogger suggested that an OS or device vendor or retailer could choose to contact Lodsys and purchase a license on behalf of its application ecosystem, but so far such discussions haven’t taken place.​

It seems that Lodsys just wants to get paid and would be happy for Apple to just pony up to the bargaining table and just buy it outright for their customers. With Apple's deep pockets, I think they should consider it and take this burden off of everyone from here on out.
Click to expand...

Yes that would be very nice but patents expire and I'm not sure if Apple wants to spend money on it...
 
Adey said:
I honestly don't think it's that cut-and-dried. The anger here is because it's a ridiculous patent that should never have been granted. Sure, the ire should be directed at the patent system itself but if air was free and you discovered that someone owned the patent on breathing you'd be angry not just at the system but also at the company cashing in and sending you threatening letters. Most of Apple, Nokia, Kodat et al's claims are based around some degree of innovation. The tide has turned against these trolls because the patent is not the kind of thing (I don't believe) that Apple would patent, let alone chase.

Others have already stated the 'patently' obvious. Stick an advert in instead.

Which, of course, is why Lodsys have waited a while and are claiming on back-sales.
Click to expand...

That's eye of the beholder. Lodsys patents were paid for (it costs money to patent anything) by someone who thought the things they were patenting were sufficiently large innovations at the time (worth patenting). One- even Apple- can't patent breathing. The original patent buyer thought that the relevant idea was big enough to pay for the patent. Lodsys apparently owns that patent now. This many years later, this "innovation" (or non-innovation) may seems frivolous to us now, but so will say the patentable elements of the mag-safe connection just as many years from now.

A guy didn't sneak in the back door of the patent office and got handed a patent for a software "innovation" (or not) for free. He had to pay for patent protection- just like Apple and many others pay for their ideas (not yet implemented in the market) to own patents.

At this site, we're regularly exposed to patents Apple has won. Some may point the way to future products but many Apple patents I've seen over the last 10+ years have not seemed to come to market. I wonder how many of those were leveraged to pinch licensing fees out of other companies who just didn't beat Apple to the patent office. And I wonder if we could see a few from 10+ years ago, if we might also see them as frivolous & obvious now... with the benefit of similar hindsight.

Again, I think this particular issue is ridiculous, just not as ridiculous as many here detesting the patent system when it works against Apple and/or Apple affiliates but very much for it when it seems to favor Apple and/or Apple affiliates. I hope this matter is resolved in a way that is favorable to all parties, but not necessarily any different than if Apple was in the role of Lodsys against... say... Android app developers for replicating something too close to Apple patented software.
 
etoiles said:
Technically, this is a 'cross sale' rather than an 'upgrade', though, since they are treated as 2 apps in the App Store and are installed separately (installing one won't replace the other).
Click to expand...

Very good point!
 
danielsan26 said:
If their patents are really almost twenty years old, they're almost expired. Why would anyone agree to license their patent for a period likely beyond the expiration of the patent?

Note to devs...if you do bow to the pressure, make sure you're agreeing to give them $$$ only for the life of the patent.

Or, find a loophole until they expire.
Click to expand...

In fact, that's exactly what Lodsys is asking for:
1) Going forward, 0.575% of all revenue generated between the day the letter arrived, and the date the patents expire, and
2) Retroactively, a lump-sum payment of 0.575% of all revenue that had already been generated before the day the letter arrived.

Lodsys has NOT asked anybody to negotiate a license that extends beyond the expiry date of the patents. Any developers, as you correctly noted, would be fools to consent to anything like that.
 
JGowan said:
It seems that Lodsys just wants to get paid and would be happy for Apple to just pony up to the bargaining table and just buy it outright for their customers. With Apple's deep pockets, I think they should consider it and take this burden off of everyone from here on out.
Click to expand...

And that's the case with many small, entrepreneurial inventors & innovators. They may lack the ability to take their idea or innovation to market, but they have the ability to actually think it through and/or innovate ONE of them. Those guys or gals have to either go out and seek backing (which is a lot easier said than done) or they can wait for others to take advantage of their patented concept to a degree worth enough for some lawyers to seek settlement dollars (for a share of the settlement).

Put yourself in their shoes. You think you've innovated something unique. It's something you deemed valuable enough to pay for the opportunity to get a patent on it (which is not cheap). You get a patent on whatever it is. You lack the resources to actually take it to market yourself, can't find backing, and some number of years later you find that enough people are infringing on it that you can finally get a law firm to take your case for the commission on potential settlements. Do you: A) go for the ROI on your patented innovation or B) Just let it go because now it's so popularly implemented it almost seems like it should be public domain?

The fundamental idea of a patent system is to allow innovators- big (Apple) sized or small (individuals)- to innovate new things and lock up a period of time on which to make money from their innovations. At some point in the past the guy behind this idea thought it was big enough to lay out the cash to patent the concept. Now, there appears to be enough ROI potential in that patent that it has become time to put the heat on toward demanding compensation from those implementing it or something close to it.

If any of us owned this patent and we had a no-cost/low-cost way to see if we could get a big cash settlement from that ownership, would any of us do anything different?
 
ciTiger said:
Yes that would be very nice but patents expire and I'm not sure if Apple wants to spend money on it...
Click to expand...

It's probably exactly what Lodsys want - a big payout from Apple. If they've only got a couple of years left on the patent, attempting to slow down the iOS ecosystem, at the exact time it needs to hold its momentum is probably the most disruption they could possibly cause.

Also with WWDC just a few weeks away Lodsys will hope to force Apple's hand into striking a hasty deal and delivering the good news to all those concerned developers.
 
In-App Purchase, like In-Car Flat Repair

Some inovations will be clearly obvious. I'd lump this in with "One-Click Purchase" too.

Even if this were "patentable", and it shouldn't be, then it'd be like plumbing. In the hotel example, it's like licensing a water pump to a hotel and expecting their guests to each license the right to use water from the pump too.

I hereby patent a spare spacesuit on spacecrafts, and dual power on tele-porters. Now's your chance, patent something while you can.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Apple would license this for their own apps to have the upgrade option.


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.
Click to expand...

And what is wrong with that?

Sorry for having to go against the grain but nothing anyone here has stated means much. If this was a real issue then Patent Laws should be changed, but at least here in the States government likes to talk about open but monopoly are all over the place. I for one see no problem considering the USA is a capitalist country and that means do on to others before they do you in.

This is why picking your representatives is important which now a days are basically worthless so I am on the side of corporations for now. Its not like Apple or any other company is not out to ram something down someone else's throat. I for one feel that Software ideas should have no way to patent. Copyright sure but nothing else and 100 year Copyright is a joke.

On top of that Patents are a joke at how long they have become and lets not get started on extensions. So again I will say if society really wanted to change they would but not enough people who care about this issue.

Some basics:

Gottschalk v. Benson

The 1968 P.T.O. guidelines prohibiting most patents on computer software.

In the 1970s, the Supreme Court twice examined whether inventions containing computer software were patentable. Both times, the Supreme Court answered in the negative. (dam smart court)

In Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court examined whether a method for updating an alarm limit (used to signal abnormal conditions) in a catalytic conversion process was patentable. The only difference between the prior art and the invention was the algorithm that calculated the new alarm limit. The Court held that this was not patentable

In the early 1990s, the Federal Circuit (the highest court for patent matters other than the Supreme Court) tried to clarify when a software related invention was patentable. The court stated that the invention as a whole should be examined. Is the invention in actuality only a mathematical algorithm, such as a computer program designed to convert binary-coded decimal numbers into binary numbers?

This is where it all goes down hill, thank you Wall Street bitches.

In 1998, the Federal Circuit issued its State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group decision, which further clarified the patentability of computer software in the United States. In this case, Signature Financial had obtained a patent on a "Hub and Spoke" method of running mutual funds.
 
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