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
Can't the little dev people start making something like a Dev UNION, and start sue-ing these trolls?
-just saying... on weed
-just saying... on weed
Look back through earlier stories on Lodsys. It was cheaper to pay the licensing fees then fight it.
It doesn't matter how big they are (Disney). If it cost much more money to fight it rather than pay the license fee, they will pay the license fee.
It might be different, if Lodsys wasn't able to get the courts to keep Apple for the most part out of this case.
I own that patent to this:
The ability to consume air through the nostrils of a living creature.
The ability to consume air through the mouth of a living creature.
The ability to consume air through the nostrils or mouth through a breathing apparatus.
Everyone please send me your money. Thanks
The ability to consume air through the nostrils of a living creature.
The ability to consume air through the mouth of a living creature.
The ability to consume air through the nostrils or mouth through a breathing apparatus.
Everyone please send me your money. Thanks
Iaps should be banned from the app store and the play store because it ruins the user experience.
I can't speak for others, *I* sure as heck would pay fully upfront for a game that's worth playing. It's just most the games on the mobile phones are the equivalent of a bonus mini-game in a regular console or computer game. Millions of gamers all over the world fork out $20-$40 for a game on a Gameboy DS. Same with the PSP, back when I was relevant. I would and have spent $70 for a single game on the PS3. I figured I've spent well over a grand on PS3 titles.
Here's a similar historic incident...
... just to show that there is genuine corruption in the system...
(From Wikipedia describing the JPEG format)
In 2002, Forgent Networks asserted that it owned and would enforce patent rights on the JPEG technology, arising from a patent that had been filed on October 27, 1986, and granted on October 6, 1987 (U.S. Patent 4,698,672). The announcement created a furor reminiscent of Unisys' attempts to assert its rights over the GIF image compression standard.
The JPEG committee investigated the patent claims in 2002 and were of the opinion that they were invalidated by prior art.[30] Others also concluded that Forgent did not have a patent that covered JPEG.[31] Nevertheless, between 2002 and 2004 Forgent was able to obtain about US$105 million by licensing their patent to some 30 companies. In April 2004, Forgent sued 31 other companies to enforce further license payments. In July of the same year, a consortium of 21 large computer companies filed a countersuit, with the goal of invalidating the patent. In addition, Microsoft launched a separate lawsuit against Forgent in April 2005.[32] In February 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to re-examine Forgent's JPEG patent at the request of the Public Patent Foundation.[33] On May 26, 2006 the USPTO found the patent invalid based on prior art. The USPTO also found that Forgent knew about the prior art, and did not tell the Patent Office, making any appeal to reinstate the patent highly unlikely to succeed.[34]
... just to show that there is genuine corruption in the system...
(From Wikipedia describing the JPEG format)
In 2002, Forgent Networks asserted that it owned and would enforce patent rights on the JPEG technology, arising from a patent that had been filed on October 27, 1986, and granted on October 6, 1987 (U.S. Patent 4,698,672). The announcement created a furor reminiscent of Unisys' attempts to assert its rights over the GIF image compression standard.
The JPEG committee investigated the patent claims in 2002 and were of the opinion that they were invalidated by prior art.[30] Others also concluded that Forgent did not have a patent that covered JPEG.[31] Nevertheless, between 2002 and 2004 Forgent was able to obtain about US$105 million by licensing their patent to some 30 companies. In April 2004, Forgent sued 31 other companies to enforce further license payments. In July of the same year, a consortium of 21 large computer companies filed a countersuit, with the goal of invalidating the patent. In addition, Microsoft launched a separate lawsuit against Forgent in April 2005.[32] In February 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to re-examine Forgent's JPEG patent at the request of the Public Patent Foundation.[33] On May 26, 2006 the USPTO found the patent invalid based on prior art. The USPTO also found that Forgent knew about the prior art, and did not tell the Patent Office, making any appeal to reinstate the patent highly unlikely to succeed.[34]
