Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Lodsys Threatens to Sue App Store Developers Over In-App Purchases and Upgrade Links

tbrinkma said:
Oh, I *have* invented an unbreakable encryption algorithm. It's even implemented on nearly every computer OS in existence. The problem is it's completely useless, because it's *unbreakable*. Nobody can decrypt the encrypted content. (You do realize that that's what "unbreakable encryption" means, right?)
Click to expand...

How is unbreakable encryption useless ? We use it everyday. You do understand that for things like passwords you don't actually need to decrypt your encrypted hash right ? You can simply encrypt the user's input using the same encryption process and compare the encrypted hashes together. If they match, the user entered the same password.
 
tbrinkma said:
Fair enough. That said, my point still stands. Early priority date has absolutely no impact on the non-obvious requirement.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Obviousness is almost invariably proven by showing that publications or devices in the art, PRIOR to the priority date, could be combined to contain all of the limitations of the claim, and would have been combined by a person having ordinary skill in the art. The earlier the priority date, the harder it is to find publications or products that do most of the steps. And if you have to combine more than 2 publications or products, it is very very unlikely that you will achieve an obviousness verdict.

Likewise, it also has no bearing on the fact that software, a branch of mathematics, is non-patentable subject matter according to the statute. (Of course, I can't help it that courts which don't understand that fact have consistently made the incorrect rulings on that matter.)
Click to expand...

The claims do not cover math.
 
KnightWRX said:
Copyright protects implementation. Software is usually an implementation of a set of tasks to be performed by a computer, as documented in a specification. Patents are made on these specifications, which are neither maths nor an expression of instructions.

You should not comment if you have never done any kind of analyst work. There's more to software than just code.
Click to expand...

You are a patent lawyer, so you are part of the current system. I want the current system changed, so my views will not be your views. You benefit financially from the current system. I wish you would find a better way to make money.
 
tbrinkma said:
Likewise, it also has no bearing on the fact that software, a branch of mathematics,
Click to expand...

Software is not a branch of mathematics. It can be used to express mathematics, mathematics have to be used in its implementation, but actual software is not mathematics.

NebulaClash said:
You are a patent lawyer, so you are part of the current system. I want the current system changed, so my views will not be your views. You benefit financially from the current system. I wish you would find a better way to make money.
Click to expand...

I am a Unix systems administrator. cmaier is the patent lawyer. At least get your posters straight.

I was simply correcting your views on "software as mathematics" and "copyright should be the only protection for software", both of which are short sighted and wrong to anyone who's dabbled in software engineering (my education is in software engineering, I just happened to fall into the Unix gig and preferred it).
 
Do people actually read?

The patent has nothing to do with IAP.

Patent 7222078

I didn't read through the whole thing, and don't know the apps in question to know exactly what was infringing what. However, it is NOT IAP. The patent was about gathering information.
 
NebulaClash said:
You are a patent lawyer, so you are part of the current system. I want the current system changed, so my views will not be your views. You benefit financially from the current system. I wish you would find a better way to make money.
Click to expand...

So how about you answer the question I posted to tbrinkma. Why is something implemented in hardware patentable, but software that does the exact same thing not patentable (other than just saying software=math)?
 
This is why I hate patent banks..

These firms that do nothing but buy up patents in order to sue companies are a drain on society... these guys are worse than ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers...
 
KnightWRX said:
You're the first one to bring up IAP.:confused:

Did you read the thread ?
Click to expand...

This story was all over the web. The indie dev claimed that he was threatened to be sued over in-app-purchase:

"Just got hit by very worrying threat of patent infringement lawsuit for using in-app purchase for PCalc Lite. Legal docs arrived via fedex".

So, I didn't read the particular MacRumors version of it. So what.

It still doesn't change my point. The patent has nothing to do with "Upgrade" button either. The claims are about gathering information.

Actually go back to reply #21. That makes much more sense. The infringement is about "rate the app if you like it".

I am not saying I agree with the patent. But we are all talking about imaginary things.
 
Last edited:
TexasAggie said:
Great, so show us some prior art from before 1992 that would have made this obvious? It should be easy since this is so broad of a patent claim as to border on the absurd.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I don't have access to any software I used or developed back then, but it doesn't take prior art to make something obvious. You know how you used to sell people software upgrades before the internet? You sent them a piece of paper in the mail that they could fill in and send back. People replaced that process for pretty much every form of data entry way back in the days of green-screen terminals hooked up to mainframes. It's no huge leap of logic to do it for one more type of data entry.

TexasAggie said:
So to paraphrase, "I can't explain why doing something in hardware is patentable but doing the exact same thing in software isn't, so I'll be cute to try and hide the fact that I just said something idiotic like software=speech."
Click to expand...

"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

I didn't say *anything* like "software=speech". I simply stated two facts.
1) Mathematics is, *according to patent statues*, non-patentable subject matter.
2) All software *is* mathematics. (Not described by mathematics. Not modeled by mathematics. *IS* mathematics.)

If you don't understand the difference between hardware and software, it is hardly a failure on my part. That said, I'll try to rectify the situation for you.

Imagine a lit candle. That candle, and the flame can be modeled with incredible detail using mathematics (software). Is the candle the model? No.

If you light the candle, it produces light, heat, and several other waste products.

If you run the model, it tells you how much light, heat, and other waste products will be produced. It does not actually produce them.

That is the difference between hardware (the candle) and software (the mathematical model *of* the candle).
 
bmturney said:
These firms that do nothing but buy up patents in order to sue companies are a drain on society... these guys are worse than ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers...
Click to expand...
Imagine running into a Lodsys employee.
You say, "Hey, what do you do for a living".
Lodsys employee, "We buy patents for things we didn't invent, then we find people we don't know who we think have violated those patents. We sue them and make lots of money by settlements and licensing fees".
I guess their Company Motto is the opposite of Google's.
 
tbrinkma said:
I didn't say *anything* like "software=speech". I simply stated two facts.
Click to expand...

My apologies for this. It was NebulaClash that said software=speech.

tbrinkma said:
1) Mathematics is, *according to patent statues*, non-patentable subject matter.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. No patent statute says math isn't patentable. Courts have carved out an exception for mathematical principles. You couldn't patent a^2+b^2=c^2, but you are more than able to patent a process/product/etc. that relies on mathematical principles.

tbrinkma said:
2) All software *is* mathematics. (Not described by mathematics. Not modeled by mathematics. *IS* mathematics.)
Click to expand...

La la la la, software=math, la la la la.

Software is simply a collection of instructions that when executed cause a device to perform certain tasks. It may rely on math, but it isn't math. Software is typically claimed as some sort of storage medium that encodes instructions for performing certain steps. The US actually doesn't allow you to claim software, but rather the medium with the instructions (which is viewed as a physical device rather than unembodied code). Of course, that basically means that software reprinted in a book (not readable by computer) or in your head is OK, but as soon as it's placed into a computer system you infringe.

tbrinkma said:
That is the difference between hardware (the candle) and software (the mathematical model *of* the candle).
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the hardware did a function and the software modeled the function (candle vs. model of the candle). I am talking about hardware and software both implementing the same function. You can have circuitry that performs encryption operations or software that performs the same encryption operations. Why is one patentable and one not?
 
Last edited:
Small White Car said:
Unfortunately, this may end up working out well for them. If the patent is legally solid (I have no idea) then Apple may end up buying it and telling developers they won't enforce it just so they can keep using it.

So these clowns may actually get away with a big check.

But whether it's a buy-out or just legal-threats I can't see Apple staying neutral. I suspect they'll take some kind of action.
Click to expand...

What if Apple buys it and then only uses it against Android apps.... Oh nevermind, nobody buys anything on Android anywhere, it is all monetized with advertising.
 
I didn't know that a 10 min e-mail to Mac Rumors yesterday would create so much hype!

I'm glad to see the general consensus is that this is a completely stupid 'infringement'. How can the button passing the user to the app store violate a patent, like was mentioned earlier it was claimed that we record and can track the user who clicked it, including if they purchase the upgraded app from the app store.

As has also been said we can't afford a lawsuit, we are a tiny company, myself and my business partner Sam, its ridiculous how they expect us to challenge them!

Rob Gloess
Computer LogicX
 
Small White Car said:
I bet they think that going after small companies will make this easier for them.

But this is definitely something that will get Apple's attention. I wonder how well their shakedown plan will go once they have a billion-dollar company breathing down their neck.

Idiots.
Click to expand...

Do you really think Apple cares about what happens to a couple small time devs? :rolleyes:
 
echo91 said:
I didn't know that a 10 min e-mail to Mac Rumors yesterday would create so much hype!

I'm glad to see the general consensus is that this is a completely stupid 'infringement'. How can the button passing the user to the app store violate a patent, like was mentioned earlier it was claimed that we record and can track the user who clicked it, including if they purchase the upgraded app from the app store.

As has also been said we can't afford a lawsuit, we are a tiny company, myself and my business partner Sam, its ridiculous how they expect us to challenge them!

Rob Gloess
Computer LogicX
Click to expand...

Best of luck to you, Rob. Unfortunately, patent trolls often look for a quick payoff, knowing it would cost you more to fight than to settle. Then they go to the next guy, rinse, and repeat.
 
TexasAggie said:
Best of luck to you, Rob. Unfortunately, patent trolls often look for a quick payoff, knowing it would cost you more to fight than to settle. Then they go to the next guy, rinse, and repeat.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Getting through to Apple is a mission atm though!
 
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