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

[KnightWRX]

Just going to address one point quickly : Saying you haven't done software engineering isn't saying you're stupid. It's saying you lack knowledge of the field you're trying to argue in.

I have never edited video. I would never argue with a video editor, much less a bunch of them, telling me I'm wrong in my theories on video editing.

The fact that you, as a programmer, don't have to deal with that level of detail anymore (thanks to abstraction layers) changes *absolutely nothing* about what is going on at the CPU level, where software is executed.

And what is going on at the CPU level changes nothing to what software is. You need to disconnect the two. Software isn't math. Taking user input and storing it in a database is not in and of itself mathematics. It's simply a copy operation. That a CPU does this using arithmetics does not make the copy operation mathematics.

You just want to be right at this point, even though you're dead wrong.

To bring you back to reality, we're talking about patents. Patents are not about the code, they are not about what the CPU executes (unless you're patenting some gate logic you find nifty and innovative), they are about processes and software engineering. They are high-level and implementation independent.

 

[gnasher729]

Actually, if the patent is found invalid, they are open to lawsuits for damages from anyone who they previously extracted money from... (I believe...)

Didn't work for RIM. They lost several hundred million dollars, managed to invalidate the patents they were sued for, and didn't get a penny back. They lost in a court case where the judge wasn't prepared to wait for the patents to be invalidated.

Now if I threaten to sue you for patent infringement, and you pay me $10,000 so that I don't sue you, you won't get a penny back if my patent is invalidated. You paid $10,000 for not being sued, and I didn't sue you, so you got what you paid for.

 

[mmcc]

So here is a question to our lawyer friends in the forum, since Lodsys decided to go against all the small developers in hopes for a quick buck, if all iOS developers file "individual" law suits against Lodsys for let's say extortion or damages, would that put Lodsys out of it's misery?

A better course of action might be to use organizations that already exist to fight these types of abuses of the patent system. One such org is PUBPAT.

Such organizations already "pool" resources and fight for the little guys. If Lodsys finds out they are up against someone with the resources to fight back, they likely will drop the issue entirely.

To the small developers: don't give in to the extortion but you do have to do due diligence when notified of a possible infringement. PUBPAT can help you with what you need to do.

 

[caspersoong]

This is mad. Why didn't Lodsys do this earlier anyway?

 

[I3D]

This is mad. Why didn't Lodsys do this earlier anyway?

If they did it before then they won't have a case they waited for every one to establish them selves, this way developers would have allot to loose and would want to settle quietly.

 

[rquick]

mingoglia, can you point to an Apple lawsuit (or threatened lawsuit) concerning a patent of an invention this obvious?

If you can't... your analogy is a false one.

You mean like suing over the use of the name "App Store"? Seems sort of analogous to me.

 

[cmaier]

So here is a question to our lawyer friends in the forum, since Lodsys decided to go against all the small developers in hopes for a quick buck, if all iOS developers file "individual" law suits against Lodsys for let's say extortion or damages, would that put Lodsys out of it's misery?

I mean how many Apple developers are there? 100K? Wouldn't the legal fees alone put Lodsys to it's knees?

probably not.

 

[tomacsh]

will sue everyone

I have visited lodsys' website, they have 4 patents. they explain in lawman terms what their patents cover. if these patents are valid, they should be suing pretty much every computer company and company with a web presence, pretty much. some of things they say their patents covers are online purchases (watch out Amazon), product update notices and assist in installation (watch out Apple), interactive online ads (watch out Google) to name a few. what is amazing some of their licensees, IRS, Cisco (doesn't say which patent) but their patents need to be invalidated. Especially the one US 7222078. It could drive a spike through the heart of all online software sales, not just Apple's App Store but Google's and RIM's.

Just did a little more research, Apple is a licensee.

 

[Mike Reed]

And what is going on at the CPU level changes nothing to what software is. You need to disconnect the two. Software isn't math. Taking user input and storing it in a database is not in and of itself mathematics. It's simply a copy operation. That a CPU does this using arithmetics does not make the copy operation mathematics.

Agreed. Although not a completely accurate analogy in areas other than the general point, I would equate the difference between mathematics and software with the difference between iron/wood and a hammer. Dig deep enough through the abstractions and sure, software is math just as a hammer is wood and iron. You can't patent natural raw materials but you can certainly patent the specific configuration that forms a certain hammer. The primary difference is with software they have to use the magic phrase "system or method of ..." but the principal is the same.

To bring you back to reality, we're talking about patents. Patents are not about the code, they are not about what the CPU executes (unless you're patenting some gate logic you find nifty and innovative), they are about processes and software engineering. They are high-level and implementation independent.

Disclaimer, the following is all opinion - I'm a developer, not a lawyer.

That's one of the big complaints I have about software patents. When patents consisted of mechanical inventions they tended to be about how the device worked and not so much what it is intended to do. This left room for competition as no one was barred from doing what their competitors were doing; they were only barred from doing it using the exact same mechanics. IMO, today's vague method and general idea patents (implementation independent) are poisoning the system to unworkable levels.

To me it seems that anymore, if the absolute letter of the law was applied, all current patents were found to be valid, and all cases of infringement were easily and instantly identified there would be little or no benefit to being a software developer. It's like the saying that there are no new stories to tell, except with lawyers and very real negative consequences if you try.

 

[myca]

Why aren't they going after MS, heck XBLA games/demos have a similar system, you download the demo and an then upgrade to the full version, and leave feedback.

But from the second hand breakdowns of the patent, by what I hope are more intelligent people than me when it comes to this thing, does make this patent seem inapplicable to apps on the appstore.

Does look like trolling, and I hope no devs hand over licence fees.

 

[Ptit]

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.

Apple is worth over 150 Billion, or did i read your post wrong

 

[Ptit]

I have visited lodsys' website, they have 4 patents. they explain in lawman terms what their patents cover. if these patents are valid, they should be suing pretty much every computer company and company with a web presence, pretty much. some of things they say their patents covers are online purchases (watch out Amazon), product update notices and assist in installation (watch out Apple), interactive online ads (watch out Google) to name a few. what is amazing some of their licensees, IRS, Cisco (doesn't say which patent) but their patents need to be invalidated. Especially the one US 7222078. It could drive a spike through the heart of all online software sales, not just Apple's App Store but Google's and RIM's.

Just did a little more research, Apple is a licensee.

Maybe they are doing this becuase Congress has Apple by the neck on privacy abuses already, this way the new laws will be institutionalized

 

[gnasher729]

Maybe they are doing this becuase Congress has Apple by the neck on privacy abuses already, this way the new laws will be institutionalized

When did that happen? I remember that congress invited one top Apple engineer (Bud Tribble, who has teamleader for the development of the Macintosh Operating System) to give them a free education about mobile technology and how it works in connection with privacy issue, and that they messed it up completely by behaving like little children. Apart from that, what problems do you see?

 

[ghostlines]

Basic patents are nonsense

This is good, maybe just maybe these guys who grant such stupid patents will realize that it's just not sensible. I mean c'mon do we have to eat off of each other for every implementation of something someone else patented no matter how basic it may be?

Hope Lodsys stirs up enough commotion that forces Apple to intervene.

 

[skinned66]

More proof the USPTO housecleaning is long overdue.

 

[intelliot]

Lodsys threatened Greengar Studios as well. Is there a list somewhere of the developers who have received letters from Lodsys?

 

[marksman]

The should just change it to say "Update to Full Version" or some other verbage and tell them to go pound sand.

Apple will likely have to deal with them at some point, but this is silly.

That being said, Amazon patented 1-click or whatever, so it certainly is possible something as dumb as an "upgrade" button could have a patent on it. Although I suspect the actual patent was not for the same kind of use which would make them having it enforced probably unlikely.

 

[numlock]

my personal opinion is that it is ridiculous that you can patent something like this but thats perhaps not up for debate.

but where is apples´s responsibility in this? they take a commission and allow the app in the store.

if i was a dev i would except apple to take a stand

 

[PhantomPumpkin]

It's a brilliant move by whichever company is making the suit. Attempting to blindly go after Apple with this type of patent case would be difficult.

However, if you can show a pattern that you own the patent, are actively protecting your interests with the patent(aka suing those who infringe) and that it's a valid patent, all through suing and winning against these smaller devs, you'll be in a far better position later to go after Apple if you choose.

However, if Apple steps in now, it may put a wrench in their plans.

 

[cmaier]

It's a brilliant move by whichever company is making the suit. Attempting to blindly go after Apple with this type of patent case would be difficult.

However, if you can show a pattern that you own the patent, are actively protecting your interests with the patent(aka suing those who infringe) and that it's a valid patent, all through suing and winning against these smaller devs, you'll be in a far better position later to go after Apple if you choose.

However, if Apple steps in now, it may put a wrench in their plans.

Apple has already licensed the patent.

 

[allpurposegeek]

Problem

The way I see it, this puts apple in a bad position. It is their own TOS that forces developers to use apple's 'in app purchase' system and thus, if this patent is valid, pay for a license from this company verses create their own non-infringing version. What I want to come out of this litigation are provisions for developers to use their own payment/in app systems and break open apple's walled garden just a bit.

 

[unplugme71]

I patented the use of a 9 digit number used to identify people.

Anyone with a social security number must pay licensing fees for every year lived. If you already died, your family needs to retro pay for the years they lived.

I also patented the Internet. The license fee is 50 cents per hour plus $1.00 for every MB used.

Might even patent the use of fingers to control devices.

 

[Mal]

You know, I think I decided the best method of preventing these patents suits from continuing to crop up: don't allow patents to be sold. Let the original owner of the patent grant exclusive licenses, yes, but they always remain that original applicant's patent, and only they could sue anyone for unlicensed use. We don't see patent trolls suing for things they didn't apply for generally. Almost every time, it's one of these situations, some little company that does nothing but buy patents from others and then sue people using those technologies, real or fake.

jW