Lodsys Targets Disney's 'Where's My Water?' and Others in New Round of Lawsuits Over In-App Purchasing

[gnasher729]

Throwing the suit against Apple didn't yield for them, so they went after little guys, before they started with some other big boys. Sad.

Correction: They never sued Apple, which would be pointless anyway since Apple has a license. What they are doing is fighting Apple with all they can because Apple _wants_ to be involved in these lawsuits against iOS developers, and Lodsys doesn't _want_ to be in a lawsuit with Apple's lawyers.

 

[iGrip]

It's the ownership part that's plain wrong - they should not be granted ownership of such things,

It is in the damn constitution. It is the supreme law of the land.

Again - we're the United States of America. We are not communist China. We protect property rights. There are many examples in the constitution. It is part of what makes this country great.

 

[Glassed Silver]

I'm rooting for Lodsys on this one. I hope the win and in-app purchasing dies because no one wants to license it.

I like your way of thinking.

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[iGrip]

Because Apple already paid for a license that should have covered their API (and those using the API).

Oops!

 

[Renzatic]

OH MAN! you guys gotta try weed!

...on weed.

You just blew my mind.

 

[rmwebs]

Till this day, I do not understand how Patent Trolling is not illegal in the united states, how about simply forbidding these kind of practices? If you're not planning on contributing to the product, you don't get the patent. If you plan on contributing to that product but you haven't done so for at least 5 years.. your patents are revoked, simple as that... WHY this is still a problem in the US is beyond me.

In a nutshell: The US legal system is a sham. No legal system is perfect, but the one in the US is seemingly designed to favor the guy with the biggest wallet.

Wouldnt hold up in the UK that's for sure. We have a simple case of 'common sense' with most judges simply telling idiots like Lodsys to take a walk.

 

[JAT]

Methinks you're wasting keystrokes responding to this man/woman (never got the picture this person uses) as past posts seems to be someone not unlike my retired gramps who enjoys going to events he doesn't like so he can tell everyone who is there how bad it is. Sadly he's never created on his own and the family says its the way he gets attention. Sad.

I'm not a developer, but work in film, and can appreciate, as a parallel, the paralyzing effect a lawsuit can have on an indie filmmaker. Throwing the suit against Apple didn't yield for them, so they went after little guys, before they started with some other big boys. Sad.

Probably.

 

[iGrip]

I take it you are not actually familiar with this case? Even as someone that is seldom kind to Apple, you should probably be on the side of the devs in this case. And Apple, who has stood up and defended their devs despite not necessarily being required to.

Others have already explained the case to you.

The viewpoints expressed by some other posters seem to be based upon a self-serving letter written by Bruce Sewall.

AFAIK, self-serving letters only rarely reflect reality. Whether Apple's beleaguered GC is correct or not has yet to be determined by any court.

And keep in mind that the following companies are not so comfortable that Sewall is not (yet again) foolishly incorrect. They thought it wiser to enter into license agreements rather than to trust the opinion of a guy who is paid to express the opinion that he did not make a blunder in the license he negotiated.

The Orvis Company, Inc.
Vera Bradley, Inc.
Ooma, Inc.
Casio America, Inc.
Roku, Inc.
Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.
iPerceptions, Inc.
Micro Electronics, Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation
The Northern Trust Company
Tyco Electronics Services GmbH
NBTY, Inc.
Mid American Energy Holdings Company
Allied 100, LLC
Wrike, Inc.
Sophos Ltd.
BMO Harris Bank N.A.
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Direct IQ, LLC
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc,
Quad International, Inc.
Hulu, LLC
Square Enix Ltd
AVG Netherlands BV
Canon, Inc.

Knowledge Adventure Games, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc.
Atmos Energy Corporation
LogMeIn, Inc.
Casual Male Retail Group
Qualcomm, Inc.
OpinionLab, Inc.
The Teaching Company
Smilebox, Inc.
Cleveland Clinic
Rodale, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Treasure Island Media, Inc.
The Northern Trust Company
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation
Vovici Corporation
H&R Block
123 Print, Inc.
Pipeline Deals, LLC
Box, Inc.
TD Bank, N.A.
Estée Lauder Companies
Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.
PC Drivers
Trend Micro, Inc.

Surveymonkey.com, LLC
DIRECTV Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Cincinnati Bell, Inc.
Worldwide Electronic Publishing, Inc.
Photobucket, Inc.
Bold Software LLC
Informatica Corporation
Stratus Holdings Ltd.
Sage Software, Inc.
West Corporation
Masco Corporation
Ascena Retail Group, Inc.
Mattel, Inc.
Sage Software, Inc.
Blockdot, Inc.
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
C&H Distributors, LLC
The Toro Company
Euromarket Designs, Inc.
Contact At Once! LLC
Epicor Software Corporation
Atari Interactive, Inc.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
Ryonet Corporation
Oracle Corporation

 

[old-wiz]

Lodsys has a huge advantage in the East Texas courts - one of the judges is related to the Lodsys company. This makes sure that Lodsys gets preferential treatment.

 

[charlituna]

If what you say is true, then Lodys is wasting hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars suing major, Fortune 500 companies who will not put up with nuisance suits.
.

They are taking a gamble that bigger companies will do as the little ones did and just pay up. They are likely to find out how wrong they are and any wasted money will be their just rewards for their error. Because companies like Disney have the resources to countersue and end this.

And with luck Lodsys will be be forced to pay back all the settlements and with that and the legal fees they wasted will be bankrupted and Apple will buy the patent for a song

 

[0815]

The viewpoints expressed by some other posters seem to be based upon a self-serving letter written by Bruce Sewall.

AFAIK, self-serving letters only rarely reflect reality. Whether Apple's beleaguered GC is correct or not has yet to be determined by any court.

And keep in mind that the following companies are not so comfortable that Sewall is not (yet again) foolishly incorrect. They thought it wiser to enter into license agreements rather than to trust the opinion of a guy who is paid to express the opinion that he did not make a blunder in the license he negotiated.

The Orvis Company, Inc.
Vera Bradley, Inc.
Ooma, Inc.
Casio America, Inc.
Roku, Inc.
Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.
iPerceptions, Inc.
Micro Electronics, Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation
The Northern Trust Company
Tyco Electronics Services GmbH
NBTY, Inc.
Mid American Energy Holdings Company
Allied 100, LLC
Wrike, Inc.
Sophos Ltd.
BMO Harris Bank N.A.
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Direct IQ, LLC
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc,
Quad International, Inc.
Hulu, LLC
Square Enix Ltd
AVG Netherlands BV
Canon, Inc.

Knowledge Adventure Games, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc.
Atmos Energy Corporation
LogMeIn, Inc.
Casual Male Retail Group
Qualcomm, Inc.
OpinionLab, Inc.
The Teaching Company
Smilebox, Inc.
Cleveland Clinic
Rodale, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Treasure Island Media, Inc.
The Northern Trust Company
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation
Vovici Corporation
H&R Block
123 Print, Inc.
Pipeline Deals, LLC
Box, Inc.
TD Bank, N.A.
Estée Lauder Companies
Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.
PC Drivers
Trend Micro, Inc.

Surveymonkey.com, LLC
DIRECTV Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Cincinnati Bell, Inc.
Worldwide Electronic Publishing, Inc.
Photobucket, Inc.
Bold Software LLC
Informatica Corporation
Stratus Holdings Ltd.
Sage Software, Inc.
West Corporation
Masco Corporation
Ascena Retail Group, Inc.
Mattel, Inc.
Sage Software, Inc.
Blockdot, Inc.
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
C&H Distributors, LLC
The Toro Company
Euromarket Designs, Inc.
Contact At Once! LLC
Epicor Software Corporation
Atari Interactive, Inc.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
Ryonet Corporation
Oracle Corporation

Why is Apple missing from that list ... they for sure have a license.

Are you sure they all licensed it for IAP use? I am pretty sure that e.g. the Direct TV, Lowes, and many other companies on that list don't have apps with IAP. (remember, this is about IAP, since Apple claims the developers are covered by the license - not about the patent in general). Also I am pretty sure many of the 200 'companies' that bought a license are scared little devs that don't have the resources to look into the details / fight them. Many of the big names on that list have the license for other reasons (often not for this specific license, but part of a bigger license package).

 

[JayCee842]

What a bunch of chumps!

I hope they somehow go bankrupt!

 

[charlituna]

Correction: They never sued Apple, which would be pointless anyway since Apple has a license. What they are doing is fighting Apple with all they can because Apple _wants_ to be involved in these lawsuits against iOS developers, and Lodsys doesn't _want_ to be in a lawsuit with Apple's lawyers.

Correct. Because the first thing Apple's lawyers will do is pull out the contract that shows that the patents were exhausted by Apple's license and Lodsys has no legal right to demand money from the developers. Game over. Pardon the pun

 

[seveej]

These types of lawsuits are so depressing.
Sadly, they reflect on what humanity (or at least an influential part of it) has become.

RGDS,

 

[charlituna]

And keep in mind that the following companies are not so comfortable that Sewall is not (yet again) foolishly incorrect. They thought it wiser to enter into license agreements rather than to trust the opinion of a guy who is paid to express the opinion that he did not make a blunder in the license he negotiated.
n

And how many of those companies are verified as iOS developers using the Apple provided IAP API. I ask because you have Hulu on that list and you can't pay for Hulu service via IAP. You have to go to their website and sign up and then in the app you log in. So any beef Lodsys has with them is over their website and thus not covered by Apple's license for those that use their IAP API. And given your mistake over Hulu I wonder how many other companies you mistakenly out on this list

 

[JohnnieBlack]

The supposed CEO of this so-called "company", Mark Small, needs to die a fiery death!

 

[JAT]

The viewpoints expressed by some other posters seem to be based upon a self-serving letter written by Bruce Sewall.

Checked the first 2 on your list that affect me. Neither even has IAP in their apps. Don't understand your list in this context. Your viewpoint is based on hatred of specific people, why should I believe you over anyone else?

Really, you and Aidenshaw should just get together over drinks frequently and rant about Apple, Apple employees, Apple product owners, and MacRumors members there. Stop doing it here. Talk about self-serving.

 

[aristotle]

Image

Can it be any more vague???

Not only is it vague but I see nothing related specifically to purchases. Those ambiguous terms could relate to anything even a daily/weekly/monthly quota system.

 

[pmpknetr21]

No one is going to say it?

Apple should just buy Lodsys

I was thinking the same, but I doubt Lodsys would sell. They prolly wanna see how much they can extort from real companies before even considering selling. If they can get more money from suing, why sell?

That said, somebody needs to straight up roll these assclowns.

 

[kdarling]

Till this day, I do not understand how Patent Trolling is not illegal in the united states, how about simply forbidding these kind of practices? If you're not planning on contributing to the product, you don't get the patent. If you plan on contributing to that product but you haven't done so for at least 5 years.. your patents are revoked, simple as that... WHY this is still a problem in the US is beyond me.

Leaving aside the fact that I don't think software patents should be allowed...

Are you saying that a inventor shouldn't be able to sell their invention to anyone else? Consider:

Let's say that you invented something, but you didn't have the health or time or money to mass produce it... or to fight all those who were using your invention without licensing it.

So you sell the patent to a company that does have the time for all that.

This is your right as the inventor. Would you take that away?

 

[timborama]

I hope Lodsys wins. Put an end to these so-called "freemium" apps.

 

[pmpknetr21]

Leaving aside the fact that I don't think software patents should be allowed...

Are you saying that a inventor shouldn't be able to sell their invention to anyone else? Consider:

Let's say that you invented something, but you didn't have the health or time or money to mass produce it... or to fight all those who were using your invention without licensing it.

So you sell the patent to a company that does have the time for all that.

This is your right as the inventor. Would you take that away?

Agreed. You're def right.

But still, something has to be done about these cats. Protecting and selling your inventions is one thing.

But buying up inventions to then use them for offensive measures just to wreak havoc on an industry is kinda ridunkulous. Mind you, many of these companies are made up of mostly independent, 1-man-show, just-tryin'-to-live-my-dreams-by-makin'-some-cream developers. They're just trying to live their lives.

Stay classy, Lodsys.

 

[cmvsm]

Would be nice if Lodsys lost to a few of these heavies, and then suffered counter suits out the yang, ultimately putting them out of business due to court fees and damages.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

What a bunch of starving morons are the people at Lodsys.

I hope they lose and go bankrupt.

 

[JHankwitz]

Till this day, I do not understand how Patent Trolling is not illegal in the united states, how about simply forbidding these kind of practices? If you're not planning on contributing to the product, you don't get the patent. If you plan on contributing to that product but you haven't done so for at least 5 years.. your patents are revoked, simple as that... WHY this is still a problem in the US is beyond me.

Wishful thinking, but it's near impossible to get such an entrenched practice changed legally.