They should but it is easier and quickerto get money out of the smaller developer/developers
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
They should but it is easier and quickerto get money out of the smaller developer/developers
Exactly. Ignore the validity or need for software patents, and the fact that there are too many vague patents in general being handed out far too easily, the trolls are the negative side effect to an otherwise positive system.
I think the recently suggested Loser Pays setup would be a decent first step solution to the problem. It'd make everyone, trolls and producing companies alike, think twice about bringing a poorly worded patent to court.
The only downside would be for the little guy. The random programmer out in his garage trying to make the latest and greatest newest thing. Even if the patents he ultimately will end up infringing upon are overly vague BS that shouldn't have passed muster to begin with, he has too much to lose to attempt fighting it. If he wins, he pays nothing. That's nice. But if he loses, which there's a good chance he will no matter how just his fight, he pays his costs along with the corps million dollar lawyers. It'll bankrupt him and drive him out of business all in one fell stroke.
Broken patent system is broken.
Also I've applied to patent tautologies on the internet.
Use of self descriptive phrases patent.
----------
The license given to Apple specifically said developers could use in app purchasing, and patent law generally allows this practice anyways. On top of that the whole reason Apple purchased the lisence in the first place was to license it to developers. So there's that.
Absofeckinglutely!!! Could not possibly agree any more with this comment! Hail the premium app pricing Model! Hail Crescent Moon games for premium pricing! Down with all those greedy app developers imploring freemium IAP! and down with all the millions of utterly stupid people buying into it!
And considering Disney the *@%$!*s announced the closure of LucasArts games publisher today with the loss of 150 jobs AND Star Wars 1313 then personally I hope Disney are totally cleaned out by Lody's, take them to the cleaners!
Oh and FYI, Disney closed them as it wants to concentrate more on 'phone and tablet games'! Ironic isn't it? I bet those 150 jobless people don't think that though.
Last edited:
Why does this sound familiar? Oh yeah...
"Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands."
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
Monster Cable, I'd like you to meet Lodsys.
"Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands."
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
Monster Cable, I'd like you to meet Lodsys.
Apple, Volkswagen, or Disney should challenge the validity of this patent and try to nullify it for them. I'm sure someone somewhere has written software that behaves in a similar way.
This is not actually the same as property rights at all.
It's more like you owning a house, and the me going to the patent office today and patenting the idea of a house. Then me taking every property owner in the US to court to take ownership of your house and everyone else's house.
Then on top of that while I was patenting the idea of a house, I had no itention of ever making any houses, the ONLY reason I patented it was so I could sue you and own your house.
What's even crazier is that they actually revised the current patent system to exclude prior-art because that made it too complicated, so whoever files for ownership of an idea first ownes it, even if they didn't invent it, or it was invented in prehistoric times, or if their whole bassis of the patent is just to patent troll.
The purpose of the patent system was to allow inventors reimburse themselves for the cost of making an invention. You should not be able to patent something if it didn't cost you anything to invent it, and if your entire reason for filing the patent is to patent troll.
Patent trolling has become so ridiculous that most companies hold huge extremely vague patent protfolios specifically for the purpose of having patents as a corporate weapon. ie IBM holds enough vague patents to make the US economy come to a halt, but they are prevented from using them because Cysco holds enough vague patents to kill IBM etc.
The best example of the patent system working positivly (for the most part) is with drug companies. They spend billions of dollars developing drugs and the patent is the only thing that allows them to get their development costs back, but when it runs out generics come on the market and everyone gets these amazing drugs for free.
The best example of the patent system working negativly is LODSYS, they inherited a patent troll patent as a patent troll. The entire patent is literally 'buying something in-app in any computer product or service through any means'. There is zero technology behind the patent we're talking about a patent that is so vague is could be described more as establishing the context of technology not creating technology. Patents that have the format of "doing existing common thing, in new context, through any method" are absurd. On top of that the patent trolls are double dipping.
Last edited:
Curious - is that based on anything more than the letter that Apple's GC sent out? Is the actual language of the agreement quoted anywhere? Is the agreement itself available?
----------
A patent is property. Just like a bank account or a stock certificate or a municipal bond. Or a trademark or a copyright. Ownership of the property confers certain legal rights to the owner.
Should the public have rights in Steven King's works if he decides to take the old ones off the market for a period of years?
You've already realized that an unused beach house should not be fair game. Likely you also realize that unpublished works of fiction should not be fair game.
Think about it for a while longer, and you may realize that property rights in patents are not something one should lose under circumstances similar to the ones discussed.
that patent dates to 2003
i still can't believe no one found any prior art. 90's was huge for shareware, downloading trial apps and buying a key to unlock the rest of the features
I don't think you're understanding how patents work. A patent doesn't grant property rights. It takes property rights away from everyone else and creates a monopoly that is regulated by the patent owner. The purpose of this is to serve the common good by encouraging inventors to invent with the promise that they will be able profit from their work through monopoly.
Patent trolls are exploiting the patent system at the expense of society specifically because the system is flawed and they know they can make money off of it.
An easy way to think about it is to understand that patents are the opposite of copywrite.
Copywrite protects one creative work from being precisly duplicated. That creative work has the value in and of itself. If sombody invents a story that's similar to a copywrited story those are two seperate works and both enjoy a copywrite.
On the other hand by patenting something you are given the right to control a whole genera of ideas, and prevent others from creating things, especially if someone develops an idea on their own without any input from you that is completely disimilar from your idea.
Last edited:
Ugh... I'm torn between my hate of Disney [for it's role in getting ever more absurd copyright laws passed since the 70s] and my disgust towards patent trolls.
What are you talking about? Can you and "America" not see the difference in patents that are included in daily technology and a beach house that provides no other uses to anyone but the owner? Clearly any normal human being can distinguish the two. When it comes to technology patents like this you should either be contributing or not have patents at all, this has nothing to do with "communist China" because HERE in EUROPE we have clear rules as to how patents are distributed, people are smart enough to say hey, "maybe it's not right for a company to own patents which they use to leech of off other companies."
It's not brain surgery, the court would be done in minutes.
Wether it's the law or not it's plain corporate bullying, you justifying it makes it all the worse.
Intellectual property, such as trademarks and patents, confer substantial rights on the owner. Those rights are most certainly included in what are termed "property rights".
This may be my last post on that topic.
This is just the beginning of the latest and greatest profit center for lawyers. The new "first to file" rules will make the problem even worse as now there will be no defense in court even if you came up with the idea 20 years earlier.
Honestly, this is a huge threat going forward in the software industry. There is no way you can write any application today that doesn't potentially infringe numerous patents, plus there is no way to realistically even know as you could spend your entire life reading nothing but software patents.
Companies like Lodsys can use these vague claims contained in frivolous patents to threaten just about anyone they wish -- especially smaller developers who cannot afford to pay $5000+ for a competent legal opinion as to what is infringed, never mind going to court -- and Lodsys won't bother to tell you the details of what they claim you infringed until they drag you into court.
Legalized extortion is what it is.
Which is why they are taking that route. And fighting Apple being included. Because as long as Apple is out of the suit, the developer doesn't get access to anything to prove the fees are covered. And since most don't have IP lawyers they will give in and give up whatever Lodsys wants in fees.
I can't believe they are stupid enough to pick on Disney, if Disney loses, I think we will see the beginning of the end of In App purchases. If Disney wins, then Lodsys will be forced to go away, at least for this patent and it will result in lower costs for developers and hopefully that means better products or less expensive ones.
Bottom line is either way, we win!
Bottom line is either way, we win!
ya
maybe disney will be the company that finally buys lodsys outright and fires the lawyers like they did with the lucas arts developers.
----------
talented people like that wont be unemployed for long.
maybe disney will be the company that finally buys lodsys outright and fires the lawyers like they did with the lucas arts developers.
----------
talented people like that wont be unemployed for long.
If this thing gets so out of hand some people who have lost everything to these patent trolls will begin to get all "Thailand" on these trolls...
...in Thailand, life is cheap.
----------
A lot of people saying IAP is bad. Hey, how about we take some aspect or avenue in your day job, call it bad, and forbid YOU from employing it? Because it's "bad" ?
...in Thailand, life is cheap.
----------
A lot of people saying IAP is bad. Hey, how about we take some aspect or avenue in your day job, call it bad, and forbid YOU from employing it? Because it's "bad" ?
Apple's license covers developers using the system as that is what Apple states was negotiated in the license agreement.
Their license would be inherently valueless if it didn't.
I'm assuming Disney Lawyers will have better luck getting the Apple bound in the case and getting the agreement tabled, in order to prove that.
Stupid Patents
The problem with these types patents is that they don't patent anything.
They patents an idea. They don't patents a thing, algorithm, method or manufacturing or a process in practice.
These types of patents should be thrown out and never allowed.
They stifle innovation. Patents that describe what they do by saying; "the embodiment is a computer running a program doing .... and the user touches a screen and .... happens". These are bull ***** patents and even if they don't violate the letter, they violate the spirit and the patent office should never allow them. This type of patent creates the trolls we have because they patent vague ideas that don't mean anything. If you are an inventor patent a "thing". Patent an algorithm, a process, etc.
As someone in technology they way you do something should be patentable, not the fact that you can do it.
If these kind of patents were allowed 50-100 years ago, only the first car with an automatic transmission would have it. All other manufacturers would be sued. There would be only one brand of car with windshield wipers.
Stupid, stupid, stupid...........
The problem with these types patents is that they don't patent anything.
They patents an idea. They don't patents a thing, algorithm, method or manufacturing or a process in practice.
These types of patents should be thrown out and never allowed.
They stifle innovation. Patents that describe what they do by saying; "the embodiment is a computer running a program doing .... and the user touches a screen and .... happens". These are bull ***** patents and even if they don't violate the letter, they violate the spirit and the patent office should never allow them. This type of patent creates the trolls we have because they patent vague ideas that don't mean anything. If you are an inventor patent a "thing". Patent an algorithm, a process, etc.
As someone in technology they way you do something should be patentable, not the fact that you can do it.
If these kind of patents were allowed 50-100 years ago, only the first car with an automatic transmission would have it. All other manufacturers would be sued. There would be only one brand of car with windshield wipers.
Stupid, stupid, stupid...........
If in-app purchasing dies(which is a good idea, don't get me wrong), how are we developers supposed to make money? Are you willing to pay 5-20$ per App(Games) like on Steam?
Please don't say ad-revenue, that is in most cases not worth the afford.
I think what people still don't get, is that making a game on iOs takes on average the same amount of work as making it on console or desktop.
It is just that for some weird reason, that people are greedy and don't want to pay more then 0,99-1,99 up-front for a game, because well it is an app, and general knowledge is, apps are like chewing gums, the majority likes them and they are cheap.
So, please answer me that question?