Lodsys Responds to Apple, Files Lawsuits Against App Developers(macrumors.com)
macrumors.com
Lodsys Responds to Apple, Files Lawsuits Against App Developers
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/lodsys-responds-to-apple-files-lawsuits-against-app-developers/
61 comments
I'd bet that if Apple doesn't support the developers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation will. And the EFF gladly accepts donations: http://www.eff.org/
Yes, that's true.
But hopefully between Apple/Google/MS/etc there is enough lawyering to not put additional burden on the EFF for a such a generic feature to app markets. Particularly if these companies want to avoid the 'but what if i get sued' stigma.
But hopefully between Apple/Google/MS/etc there is enough lawyering to not put additional burden on the EFF for a such a generic feature to app markets. Particularly if these companies want to avoid the 'but what if i get sued' stigma.
You need to work on congress, not Lodsys or Apple.
Lodsys is doing what the law lets them. I'm not going to get mad at them for it - I'd get mad at those that let them do it.
Lodsys is doing what the law lets them. I'm not going to get mad at them for it - I'd get mad at those that let them do it.
They are being assholes, which is fine as far as the law goes, but still it's a legit reason for being mad at them.
It's pointless, that's how corporations are. It's about as useful as getting mad at a wild animal for acting like an animal.
The only time corporations "care" is when their customers want them to (because otherwise they would loose business).
The only time corporations "care" is when their customers want them to (because otherwise they would loose business).
Wild animals don't know what they're doing, the people behind corporations do. Corporations are abstract constructs, but they're run by people. And in this case the people are amoral assholes, extortionists leeching off of the work of others.
The people who run corporations have obligations towards their investors. If they disagree, they may quit, but they cannot run a corporation against the interest of its investors. And, if they quit, someone will replace them.
This turns corporations into sociopath-like entities.
This turns corporations into sociopath-like entities.
Okay, then the blame lies with the investors... No matter how you try to view it, in the end there's always people involved. Of course reality is complex and there's always a number of interwoven causes for everything instead of a single determining factor. But, and maybe that's just me, I really don't like this hand-waving of any kind of personal responsibility because "corporations exist to make profit" or similar nonsense. As if that makes it somehow OK.
"hand-waving of any kind of personal responsibility"
You have a different mindset. To you, enforcing these patents is evil. But to a company it's not. It's good. In fact they believe they have a personal responsibility to enforce them.
That won't change till congress changes the rules.
And the same is true for probably 99% of investors as well.
It's only a tiny minority of computer programmers that realize the problem.
You have a different mindset. To you, enforcing these patents is evil. But to a company it's not. It's good. In fact they believe they have a personal responsibility to enforce them.
That won't change till congress changes the rules.
And the same is true for probably 99% of investors as well.
It's only a tiny minority of computer programmers that realize the problem.
Yes they are, I quite agree. And it's still pointless to get mad at them.
How many times have you been mad about something it was pointless to be mad over? I'd guess a lot of times if you're like most people I know. In how many of those instances would it have been helpful for someone to say to you, "Hey, that thing you're mad over? Not useful to be mad about that." Probably not often, if you're anything like me.
My very first post in this thread was a bit more helpful - I told him to redirect his anger toward congress.
I'd prefer to donate to a central organization aimed at abolishing software patents in general, rather than donating to fight one specific - albeit aggravating - instance of software patent abuse.
All this recent litigation nonsense is turning me into an extremist. Consider me anti all patents. And I'm this close to being anti all copyright as well.
Interesting that Apple is actually negotiating with them over this. They must be seriously thinking about the value of the FUD it would create for their competitors if Apple managed to come out of it with an exclusive (or even non-exclusive, but expensive) license.
It was pretty silly to think Lodsys, which is solely a patent-holding company, would back down just because they got a letter from Apple's lawyers. Lodsys has lawyers too.
I don't think Apple expected Lodsys to back down - they were in negotiations with them afterall [according to Apple's letter]. The letter was intended to encourage developers to continue to develop for Apple's platform. If they had been serious about stopping Lodsys, Apple would have been in court seeking an injunction. However, the downside would have been Apple potentially setting a precedent that established greater obligations toward developers than currently exist - and that has such severe downsides to their business model that they won't do it.
IANAL, but is it even possible for Apple to get an injunction, given that they technically/formally are not a party in this case?
Apple would not get an injunction, but it could get a declaratory judgment. Apple could get a judgment for invalidity or non-infringement.
You are right though, legally Apple is in a different position from the app developers that are being sued, and that probably poses some problems. The terms of Apple's license with Lodsys might hamstring some of their arguments. Apple might not even have standing to get a judgment of non-infringement. On the other hand, if Apple had filed for declaratory judgment, it could have chosen a venue other than the Eastern District of Texas, the plaintiff-friendly federal court that Lodsys chose.
It's a complicated decision for Apple, and it's more than just choosing to stand up for developers or not. Apple was probably in the process of evaluating the strength of their position when Lodsys rushed the issue to the courthouse.
You are right though, legally Apple is in a different position from the app developers that are being sued, and that probably poses some problems. The terms of Apple's license with Lodsys might hamstring some of their arguments. Apple might not even have standing to get a judgment of non-infringement. On the other hand, if Apple had filed for declaratory judgment, it could have chosen a venue other than the Eastern District of Texas, the plaintiff-friendly federal court that Lodsys chose.
It's a complicated decision for Apple, and it's more than just choosing to stand up for developers or not. Apple was probably in the process of evaluating the strength of their position when Lodsys rushed the issue to the courthouse.
INALE - Given the claims regarding the nature of their license made in Apple's letter, it would appear that LodSys's pursuit of developers could easily be construed by competent attorneys as a violation of Apple's license with at least enough plausibly to get Lodsys into court and keep them there over the short term were Apple so inclined. Obviously either Apple is not so inclined or the description of their rights under the license with Lodsys is based upon a less than conservative interpretation of the agreement.
Pussies, not going to bat for their developers. Apple has scores of billions in the bank. Give one of them to a posse of lawyers and tell them "We want to see the Lodsys rubble bounce."
It's silly to think that a troll would go for the low-hanging fruit, instead of spending millions on a risky attempt against a massively richer company?
Well, Florian Müller predicted the likelihood.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/analysis-of-apples-l...
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/analysis-of-apples-l...
So what exactly is this patent covering? I've heard several things .. the 'Upgrade to Pro Version' buttons, the 'Would you like to rate this app' dialog, and some other things.
Does anyone actually know what it exactly is that they are after?
Does anyone actually know what it exactly is that they are after?
Their own public description of their patents[1] seems to cover both (and more). However, the example Apple cites in their letter[2] refers to "user feedback":
Once again, Apple provides, under the infringement theories set out in your letters, the physical memory in which user feedback is stored and, just as importantly, the APIs that allow transmission of that user feedback to and from the App Store, over an Apple server, using Apple hardware and software. Indeed, in the notice letters to App Makers that we have been privy to, Lodsys itself relies on screenshots of the App Store to purportedly meet this claim element.
If anybody has a link to an actual notice from Lodsys, that would be the best source.
[1]: http://www.lodsys.com/our-patents.html [2]: http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/apple-responds-to-lodsys-...
Once again, Apple provides, under the infringement theories set out in your letters, the physical memory in which user feedback is stored and, just as importantly, the APIs that allow transmission of that user feedback to and from the App Store, over an Apple server, using Apple hardware and software. Indeed, in the notice letters to App Makers that we have been privy to, Lodsys itself relies on screenshots of the App Store to purportedly meet this claim element.
If anybody has a link to an actual notice from Lodsys, that would be the best source.
[1]: http://www.lodsys.com/our-patents.html [2]: http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/apple-responds-to-lodsys-...
There must be prior art.
Telephone voting on the Eurovision song contest? Customer helpline numbers? Comment cards in restaurants?
Forgive me if I've missed something here.
Telephone voting on the Eurovision song contest? Customer helpline numbers? Comment cards in restaurants?
Forgive me if I've missed something here.
Yup. The patent system is severely broken, especially their prior art research (or lack of).
Using a service to sell users on an upgrade, at least from what I understand. It's not just IAP, but using IAP to get people from free to paid.
in-app purchases, no?
When Sony got pwned, I had mixed feelings. That would not be the case here.
One can make a case about a lot of businesses being nothing but a drag on society. Few are as clear-cut as this - scum of the earth, these people are. They contribute nothing, create nothing, and expect to tax us, because they can.
Die in a fire, Lodsys. May the collapse of your illegitimate business be swift.
Die in a fire, Lodsys. May the collapse of your illegitimate business be swift.
I'm not sure exactly what you are implying about feeling since Apple is very polarizing (happy iOS devs are getting sued?), but if you take a step back you'll see that this isn't just an Apple problem. The lawsuits will come to Android app devs next, and probably most other mobile platforms with in-app purchases.
Lodsys is already targeting Android developers too.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/27/lodsys-also-targeting-an...
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/27/lodsys-also-targeting-an...
I've been curious to see if/how this will affect my proof-of-concept Android app Click It/Click It Gold. I built it within 3 days specifically to test the in-app billing api just after their debut... No word from Lodsys, yet.
http://www.kefsco.com/clickit.html
http://www.kefsco.com/clickit.html
Is it legal and/or feasible to start a Kickstarter project to help fund these developers' legal costs? Not sure how it could be distributed but if they could somehow pool together it would make for a pretty awesome stand. I know I'd gladly contribute to stop these stupid a-holes from pulling these stunts on the average joe.
I don't think Kickstarter would approve it, but I'm about to release a plugin that might help : http://ignitiondeck.com
Hate to sound spammy, but this issue matters to me.
Hate to sound spammy, but this issue matters to me.
Source post here: http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/-responsibility-and-acc...
Betting $1000/dev that they're right is definitely gutsy.
Betting $1000/dev that they're right is definitely gutsy.
I don't think it's gutsy.
1. They are a patent troll.
2. They have no brand to tarnish.
3. Even if they did have a brand to tarnish (oh, your THOSE patent trolls, no thanks I'll sell to someone else), their assests can easily be transferred to an array of successor companies with little impact to their ability to troll.
4. Their promise is not an enforceable contract. There's no "consideration" involved. If they don't pay, there's no legal recourse.
5. It looks to me like a plan to either:
a. Influence public opinion.
b. Provide a defense against tortious interference claims.
(note: I'm not a lawyer, this is just ignorant supposition).
1. They are a patent troll.
2. They have no brand to tarnish.
3. Even if they did have a brand to tarnish (oh, your THOSE patent trolls, no thanks I'll sell to someone else), their assests can easily be transferred to an array of successor companies with little impact to their ability to troll.
4. Their promise is not an enforceable contract. There's no "consideration" involved. If they don't pay, there's no legal recourse.
5. It looks to me like a plan to either:
a. Influence public opinion.
b. Provide a defense against tortious interference claims.
(note: I'm not a lawyer, this is just ignorant supposition).
$1000/dev that they threaten. They have only threatened a handful of people.
Of course, they just making an offer, and, like any gift, they are under no obligation to make good on it.
If they refused to honor the offer in the event that they lose, they would not likely be worried about their reputation.
If they refused to honor the offer in the event that they lose, they would not likely be worried about their reputation.
It's only what, $8000? A drop in the ocean for Lodsys, and $1000 isn't going to do anything for these developers.
IANAL, but I suspect it would still cost the targeted developers more than $1000 worth of lawyering to fend of Lodsys in the meantime. Expecting to collect on that requires you to believe that either a) Lodsys won't make good on their threat to sue, or b) that Apple will somehow both intervene and win before they do. It's still going to be easier and cheaper to just give them the money.
I just don't get how this can be upheld.
It's OBVIOUSLY impossible for Johnny Coder to be aware of every patent that has been filed to date.
Copying someones overall design wholesale, I can understand. The "Look and Feel" copyright system is a much neater solution than all this patent nonsense.
It's OBVIOUSLY impossible for Johnny Coder to be aware of every patent that has been filed to date.
Copying someones overall design wholesale, I can understand. The "Look and Feel" copyright system is a much neater solution than all this patent nonsense.
> It's OBVIOUSLY impossible for Johnny Coder to be aware of every patent
There is no requirement that you be aware of the patent to infringe upon it. In fact, awareness of the patent may entitle the patent holder to increased damages.
Disclaimer: I write software for a living. I'm not sure where I stand on the idea of software patents but I suspect they do more good than harm. I think that someone suing small, independent developers who made the mistake of using an Apple-provided API in an obvious way and who lack the financial means or legal expertise to defend themselves is reprehensible.
There is no requirement that you be aware of the patent to infringe upon it. In fact, awareness of the patent may entitle the patent holder to increased damages.
Disclaimer: I write software for a living. I'm not sure where I stand on the idea of software patents but I suspect they do more good than harm. I think that someone suing small, independent developers who made the mistake of using an Apple-provided API in an obvious way and who lack the financial means or legal expertise to defend themselves is reprehensible.
[deleted]
Why would these people file suit the week before WWDC? It makes no sense at all.
What about other mobile platforms? Don't they allow in-app purchases?
Given that they bought 'future' license rights to a patent and not previous entered into patent license rights.. what other laws factor into the case?
I do not think RICO applies here just yet. Certainly filing untrue claims against a party that will not be a party to any patent claim is not too bright as a business model.
In any case both Apple, Google, MS, etc would be the ones acting on legal cases to remove or keep an app in the market not the individual developer. I AM NOT A LAWYER.. however would it be wise to see whether Apple, Google, MS, etc fight this at the DCMA/case level of when a court tries to request a take down?
I do not think RICO applies here just yet. Certainly filing untrue claims against a party that will not be a party to any patent claim is not too bright as a business model.
In any case both Apple, Google, MS, etc would be the ones acting on legal cases to remove or keep an app in the market not the individual developer. I AM NOT A LAWYER.. however would it be wise to see whether Apple, Google, MS, etc fight this at the DCMA/case level of when a court tries to request a take down?
Good luck with that.
Wonder if there is a way to get WBC style trolls to go up against patent trolls.
just convince them that patent trolls support the "homosexual agenda".
Doing that is the hard part. Good luck.
Doing that is the hard part. Good luck.
WBC style trolls are those who abuse the legal system for personal gain, by legal but not necessarily moral means.
Patent trolls are exactly in this mold, the question is if there is a way to make money off of them?
Any system will have parasites. You can change system, i.e. patent reform, or introduce a predator for the parasite.
Patent trolls are exactly in this mold, the question is if there is a way to make money off of them?
Any system will have parasites. You can change system, i.e. patent reform, or introduce a predator for the parasite.
Patents are bogus, and software patents are even worse. In this case, we're talking about process and not technology. Maybe this is needed to bring light to the issue and perhaps piss Apple off enough that they'll work to invalidate the patent.