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 Targets Disney's 'Where's My Water?' and Others in New Round of Lawsuits Over In-App Purchasing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From ...
So now its not just Apple stepping all over other company's IP, but their vendors as well?
The article doesn't mention Apple's culpability for selling pirated goods. Is Apple OK because they have a license? Does Apple's licence allow them to sell infringing goods and to avoid all responsibility?
So now its not just Apple stepping all over other company's IP, but their vendors as well?
The article doesn't mention Apple's culpability for selling pirated goods. Is Apple OK because they have a license? Does Apple's licence allow them to sell infringing goods and to avoid all responsibility?
The problem is, you're treading on thin ice when you start restricting who can and who cannot sue. The philosophy behind our court system is that the judges, jury, and related parties can fairly determine a case, and nobody should be unable to protect themselves or their property using the court of law.
Rather than restrict or illegalize patent trolling, perhaps just a lose pays rule. If Lodsys loses a patent case, they should be responsible for 100% of the legal costs to ALL related parties, AND damages as a result of the lawsuit. This would really discourage patent trolling as it makes it a significant risk.
According to your logic, if somebody doesn't use their beach house all that much, the public should have rights to march in and have lunch in their dining room.
Sorry, but we believe in property rights here. This ain't communist China. If you own something, you can do nothing with it and it doesn't affect your ownership. If you think that is wrong, then maybe you'd understand why there's a homeless guy insisting on sleeping in your spare bedroom.
Some really tiny developer just updated their app to remove IAP for legal reasons that smelled like Lodsys. (Wish I could remember which app, but it was 1-2 weeks ago and I had a ton of updates I did all at once.)
I'm thinking Lodsys isn't done extorting money from lone developers who can't afford a team of lawyers. Great business model, because you don't have to be right! Just hire lawyers to rob the little guy, and collect money for THEIR creative work! Kudos.
I'm thinking Lodsys isn't done extorting money from lone developers who can't afford a team of lawyers. Great business model, because you don't have to be right! Just hire lawyers to rob the little guy, and collect money for THEIR creative work! Kudos.
Why should Apple's license allow Disney to infringe on the patent? Because Apple happens to sell the infringing product? Huh?
Yep, this might finally be the one that causes a final ruling on whether Apple's license really does cover developers. And if the courts say yes it does then perhaps all those folks that settled can sue and get their money back.
It's still not as bad as that one patent troll company who sued offices for sending a document to a printer over a network.
These days, it seems all you have to do to get a patent is go over to the registry, say "it does this standard thing...but with computers", do a jazz hands move, and you get rewarded one without any questions asked.
Thank Goodness that the guys across the hall in the Trademark Office don't allow that. I base the statement on their refusal to allow Apple to get a trademark in the word "mini" when identifying a mini iPad.
I love how Lodsys is described in the article-- on a site known for its objectivity-- as being a "patent troll." No shame whatsoever
I have to agree with the description in this case. They aren't apparently protecting a patent but attempting to double dip. The patent was, according to Apple' fully licensed and paid for. As I recall this was with another company that owned the patents Lodsys later bought. Which would include having to accept the current deals or work to change them. But Lodsys isn't doing that in proper form. They are ignoring the legally binding deal and going after folks they have no right to go after before proving that claim is wrong and there's no such terms.
And being bullies etc to many of the smaller developers. These folks acted in good faith because they were told by Apple that the issue was covered by Apple. Lodsys should be suing Apple over that 'good faith' and after proving in the courts that Apple made a mistake saying it was covered making Apple pay the damages for their speaking out of turn.
It's not the same. What we're talking about here is (seemingly) deliberate nuisance-ry. In my opinion, its more akin to the kind of mandatory licensing that comes with things like cellular antennas and the such. Once something is a consumer standard, you NEED to let the grip go just a touch.
All we're looking at here is corporate bullying. There is no one protecting you if you don't have oodles of $$. And THATS BS. The non-communal mentality in our society is gross.
IAPs have a number of valid uses, many of which are better than the alternatives. Just cause some game developers went to the dark side doesn't change that
I just don't understand this
How can In app purchases be a patentable idea. It's so blatantly obvious that a 6yr old would think of it. If I'm Amazon, I want an app to let you purchase goods. If I'm ebay I want an app that would let you purchase goods. Etc.
this is completely whats wrong with our patent system now. They grant patents for anything because they are afraid if they turn someone down they'll be sued. So they approve almost every patent application and let the courts sort them all out. Only the lawyers win in this scenario.
How can In app purchases be a patentable idea. It's so blatantly obvious that a 6yr old would think of it. If I'm Amazon, I want an app to let you purchase goods. If I'm ebay I want an app that would let you purchase goods. Etc.
this is completely whats wrong with our patent system now. They grant patents for anything because they are afraid if they turn someone down they'll be sued. So they approve almost every patent application and let the courts sort them all out. Only the lawyers win in this scenario.
What could the source of these patents be?
Besides being an obvious idea, back in the early PalmOS days, we all had in-app purchases, whether it was on a base PDA or a PalmOS based phone. They were even more sophisticated then, because the built in API supported delayed resolution of a purchase, so for example, you could buy an app on an airplane, even though the credit card couldn't be processed until you landed...
Besides being an obvious idea, back in the early PalmOS days, we all had in-app purchases, whether it was on a base PDA or a PalmOS based phone. They were even more sophisticated then, because the built in API supported delayed resolution of a purchase, so for example, you could buy an app on an airplane, even though the credit card couldn't be processed until you landed...
Or take ideas that have been around in the computer world forever and apply them to a "mobile device" and all of the sudden its a valid patent. Ridiculous. And the same applies to Apple, they have done it a lot as well and gotten away with it.
Because Apple's properly licensed it, paid for the use. Including coverage of any uses by anyone adding their IAP API into their apps to sell via Apple's store system for use on Apple's iOS running devices.
In other words, they followed the law. Lodsys is trying to ignore the last part of the deal and double dip. Likely because they don't like the fees the original owners agreed to and want more money
Why isn't Apple protecting the developers more? Why would Apple even need to license it if it required developers to license it too?
*EDIT* Damm, I type too slow. Its already been asked a bunch of times
*EDIT* Damm, I type too slow. Its already been asked a bunch of times
Apple would have to license it to create the API. Developers would have to license the tech to use the API. HOWEVER Apple thought that a tad wack and licensed for both on behalf of any developers that might want to use the IAP API. It makes sense for them to do this because forcing the developers to handle it on their own would make them less likely to use the system. Particularly small developers that don't have legal departments etc.
I am an app developer with a small app making less than a couple of hundred dollars per month via in-app purchase, and I have received several threatening messages from Lodsys (and their representatives). Clearly they are targeting all sizes of app developers.
Are you sure about this? I don't know the details but if what you is saying is true this would not take over a year since apple got involved in to sort out. Do you have a copy of the contract apple has with lodsys or any evidence that last part you mentioned actually exist?
Why is this so hard for you to understand. When Apple licensed this tech they included fees to cover the developers that were putting it in their apps. It's in the terms of the deal.
It's no different than Qualcomm licensing the SEP for 3G to make 3G chipsets and including the payments for the buyers use of the chips. Samsung etc can't turn around and demand that Apple bought the chips and have to pay a usage fee because Qualcomm paid for that use already.
If Lodsys disagrees and says that no such exhaustion is in the deal then they need to first sue Apple and prove it. And then either demand Apple pay all the damages on behalf of the developers that were told by Apple it was covered or then sue the developers. But right now they are suing over something that Apple claims was covered long ago
You have an odd view of "rights"
It's the ownership part that's plain wrong - they should not be granted ownership of such things, anymore than I deserve ownership of your house. Right now, anybody could sue you and say, "sorry, I own the patent on the idea of owning a house. Doesn't matter how long people have been doing it, or if it seems obvious - I own that idea."
Most problems solved in a given field are solvable by ANYONE who works in that field a spart of a day's work. The percentage of thoughts that are truly novel and rare are so small that they should be handled as a special case. How often have you seen a high profile patent case that wasn't obvious? We all figure out how to put our pants on in the morning - someone shouldn't be able to sue us all because they were the first to describe the process in writing.
We also believe in the free market in this country, i.e., beating the competition with superior products. Not by taking all options off the table.
There is precedent in this - a famous patent battle where a company claimed they owned the ability to have a product that was the color red, because it was more attractive. The courts ruled against this patent, even though it was the first such filing, based solely on the concept that banning everyone else from selling items that were red would cause more harm to capitalism than good.
It's the ownership part that's plain wrong - they should not be granted ownership of such things, anymore than I deserve ownership of your house. Right now, anybody could sue you and say, "sorry, I own the patent on the idea of owning a house. Doesn't matter how long people have been doing it, or if it seems obvious - I own that idea."
Most problems solved in a given field are solvable by ANYONE who works in that field a spart of a day's work. The percentage of thoughts that are truly novel and rare are so small that they should be handled as a special case. How often have you seen a high profile patent case that wasn't obvious? We all figure out how to put our pants on in the morning - someone shouldn't be able to sue us all because they were the first to describe the process in writing.
We also believe in the free market in this country, i.e., beating the competition with superior products. Not by taking all options off the table.
There is precedent in this - a famous patent battle where a company claimed they owned the ability to have a product that was the color red, because it was more attractive. The courts ruled against this patent, even though it was the first such filing, based solely on the concept that banning everyone else from selling items that were red would cause more harm to capitalism than good.