EFF says Apple should support iOS developers in Lodsys patent threats
Digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation has called on Apple to defend iOS developers from the threat of a patent lawsuit from Lodsys over in-app purchasing functionality in iOS apps.
EFF staff attorney Julie Samuels published a blog post on Friday expressing concern over "Apple's failure to defend" third-party iOS developers who received letters from Lodsys last week accusing them of infringing on a patent that covers in-app purchasing functionality. In the letters, Lodsys demanded that developers license the technology in question within 21 days or face possible legal action.
"We've been waiting expectantly for Apple to step up and protect the app developers accused of patent infringement solely for using a technology that Apple required they use in order to sell their apps in Apple's App Store," Samuels wrote.
After many accused the company of being a 'patent troll,' Lodsys defended its actions by noting that Apple had licensed its technology, adding that Apple's license doesn't cover third-party developers. Google and Microsoft have also licensed technology from the company.
Lodsys seeks 0.575 percent of U.S. revenue from the period of the notice letter to the expiration of the patent, plus applicable usage. Developers are accused of violating U.S. Patent No. 7222078, entitled "Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network."
However, EFF argues that, since Apple both provides and requires the use of the functionality in iOS, it should defend the developers in question, many of whom "lack the resources" for a legal confrontation. According to Samuels, the problem is a "misallocation of burden" because developers should not be required to investigate whether technologies Apple provides infringe on preexisting patents.
"Instead, they would expect (with good reason) that Apple wouldn't provide technologies in its App Store that open its developers up to liability ? and/or would at least agree to defend them when a troll like Lodsys comes along," Samuels wrote. "We hope that going forward companies like Apple will do what's right and stand up for their developers and help teach the patent trolls a lesson."
Earlier this week, reports emerged that Apple is reportedly "actively investigating" Lodsys' claims, though it has not committed to defending the developers accused of infringement.
EFF staff attorney Julie Samuels published a blog post on Friday expressing concern over "Apple's failure to defend" third-party iOS developers who received letters from Lodsys last week accusing them of infringing on a patent that covers in-app purchasing functionality. In the letters, Lodsys demanded that developers license the technology in question within 21 days or face possible legal action.
"We've been waiting expectantly for Apple to step up and protect the app developers accused of patent infringement solely for using a technology that Apple required they use in order to sell their apps in Apple's App Store," Samuels wrote.
After many accused the company of being a 'patent troll,' Lodsys defended its actions by noting that Apple had licensed its technology, adding that Apple's license doesn't cover third-party developers. Google and Microsoft have also licensed technology from the company.
Lodsys seeks 0.575 percent of U.S. revenue from the period of the notice letter to the expiration of the patent, plus applicable usage. Developers are accused of violating U.S. Patent No. 7222078, entitled "Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network."
However, EFF argues that, since Apple both provides and requires the use of the functionality in iOS, it should defend the developers in question, many of whom "lack the resources" for a legal confrontation. According to Samuels, the problem is a "misallocation of burden" because developers should not be required to investigate whether technologies Apple provides infringe on preexisting patents.
"Instead, they would expect (with good reason) that Apple wouldn't provide technologies in its App Store that open its developers up to liability ? and/or would at least agree to defend them when a troll like Lodsys comes along," Samuels wrote. "We hope that going forward companies like Apple will do what's right and stand up for their developers and help teach the patent trolls a lesson."
Earlier this week, reports emerged that Apple is reportedly "actively investigating" Lodsys' claims, though it has not committed to defending the developers accused of infringement.
Comments
EFF are attention whores in this matter; they can't realistically expect Apple to do anything they say given that they are usually on the other side of issues with respect to Apple.
The only time I can think the EFF has actively been against Apple is when it argued to the Library of Congress jail breaking and unlocking one's own phone should be legal. As a happy T-Mobile iPhone using customer, I am certainly happy an organization like the EFF exists.
Further, I am uncertain why the EFF should be considered a media whore in this insistence. One of it's staff attorneys merely posted her opinion on the EFF's blog. It didn't contact any media outlets.
Yeah, like Apple's going to do anything because the EFF tells them they should?
EFF are attention whores in this matter; they can't realistically expect Apple to do anything they say given that they are usually on the other side of issues with respect to Apple.
If Apple does get involved, it won't be for a while. They are too deliberate to just jump in willy-nilly or because of public opinion.
They'll wait until they have an appropriate response to the developers and the lawyers, but they are forced to make a move because of public opinion. This can greatly affect the appeal of the developer program, something that Apple would not want tarnished because it is very valuable to them and iOS.
Unfortunately, the EFF is usually on the right side.
Let's just say that we disagree on this point.
Unfortunately, the EFF is usually on the right side. This matter included. When Apple offers in application purchasing to both its customers and developers, those customers and developers rightfully assume they are protected when utilizing those services. By the same token this patent troll is going after iOS developers, it could also go after people making in application purchases.
The only time I can think the EFF has actively been against Apple is when it argued to the Library of Congress jail breaking and unlocking one's own phone should be legal. As a happy T-Mobile iPhone using customer, I am certainly happy an organization like the EFF exists.
Further, I am uncertain why the EFF should be considered a media whore in this insistence. One of it's staff attorneys merely posted her opinion on the EFF's blog. It didn't contact any media outlets.
While we seldom disagree, TBell, I will take issue with this. EFF has been as guilty of leveraging Apple's profile to draw attention to themselves as Greenpeace. EFF is routinely critical of Apple's protection of the intended user interface, with the same fervent vehemence of an ardent Android fan at an I/O love fest. I agree in principle with some of their policy suggestions, and am first in line to be openly critical of the current patent situation, but I am not at all impressed with their methods or their much-touted "integrity". I am immediately suspicious of their intent every single time they issue a public statement directed at Apple.
The key issue for me is WHY did they choose to issue the statement in the blog. While you may choose to assume it is essentially harmless, their past track record leads me to assume it is merely testing the response waters. If they get enough interest and response - they will weigh in further, deeper and more critically if Apple doesn't respond in exactly the way they desire. As they have done so many times in the past.
Eff- wtf?
♫ You?re so unbelievable.
Maybe the EFF should defend developers against Lodsys patent threats.
I also don't necessarily agree with everything the EFF does. Nobody is perfect. Yet, on a whole the organization does a lot of good generally taking consumer friendly positions. Might the organization seek publicity? Sure, but that is a necessary evil. The organization relies largely on public contributions. It's clients generally can't pay the cost necessary to defend expensive IP related battles. If nobody has heard of you, it is hard to get public donations. I can only think of two instances when the EFF has actively engaged Apple in legal proceedings as opposed to merely making public statements. One was with the Library of Congress. The EFF won that battle, making it clear it is legal to jailbreak and unlock your phone without fear of being prosecuted under the DMCA. The other is when Apple was sending what I thought were bogus take down notices to small websites providing instructions for how to use Apple products for unintended purposes such as jail breaking. Not sure how that turned out.
As far as Green Peace is concerned, I think that group is more radical in its methods then the EFF. It undoubtedly promotes itself at Apple's expense all at time. Yet, Green Peace also is supported entirely by public donations. So, that perhaps is a necessary evil. It seems hard to entirely be opposed to an organization that simply wants products to be manufactured in a socially responsible manner.
I also am not sure you can argue with Green Peace's success with Apple. The group pressured Apple into outlining Apple's environmental polices. Steve didn't release that letter because he felt like it. There was a lot of public pressure generated through Green Peace. My only problem with Green Peace is it's methodology in rating manufacturing companies in terms of environmental impact was biased against Apple because it heavily downgraded Apple against companies like Dell strictly based on Apple not making public promises to reduce its environmental footprint. Turns out Apple was actually doing more privately then the companies making public promises yet it was being graded lower. Just about everything in Apple products are recyclable and made from friendly materials. They also use very little energy compared to some competitors' products. I guess it can be argued that it benefits the public to know what steps a company is taking to be socially responsible. That certainly is Bill Gates and Warren Buffets position when it comes to philanthropy. I think those two made a public statement recently that the super wealthy should publicly (as opposed to anonymously) commit to donating funds to social causes as to set an example for others.
As much as I like Apple, I also think Apple is kind of is an easy target for Green Peace with Al Gore on the Board and Apple's think different commercials.
The group that likes to pick on Apple seemingly largely for publicity that irks me is Consumer Reports.
Hope we are on the same side of the fence again in the near future. Meanwhile, Cheers.
While we seldom disagree, TBell, I will take issue with this. EFF has been as guilty of leveraging Apple's profile to draw attention to themselves as Greenpeace. EFF is routinely critical of Apple's protection of the intended user interface, with the same fervent vehemence of an ardent Android fan at an I/O love fest. I agree in principle with some of their policy suggestions, and am first in line to be openly critical of the current patent situation, but I am not at all impressed with their methods or their much-touted "integrity". I am immediately suspicious of their intent every single time they issue a public statement directed at Apple.
The key issue for me is WHY did they choose to issue the statement in the blog. While you may choose to assume it is essentially harmless, their past track record leads me to assume it is merely testing the response waters. If they get enough interest and response - they will weigh in further, deeper and more critically if Apple doesn't respond in exactly the way they desire. As they have done so many times in the past.
Where was the EFF when Google hasn't stepped in to defend Android providing companies who are being sued?
Hill60, Google already stated they were standing behind HTC in Apple's suit against them.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2360917,00.asp
wrong link. . . sorry
Hill60, Google already stated they were standing behind HTC in Apple's suit against them.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2360917,00.asp
Where is Google standing behind other manufacturers such as Motorola after Microsoft sued them, again after licensing Android to HTC.
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/p...27MSHTCPR.mspx
There are also some industry watchers who think this was just as much about defending against Apple's suit.
EDIT: I think I'd seen this chart before, but it's a good graphic to show who's suing who.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...patent-lawsuit
Where was the EFF when Microsoft demanded licensing fees from HTC for using Android?
Where was the EFF when Google hasn't stepped in to defend Android providing companies who are being sued?
+1
Since the Barnes an Noble lawsuit everybody knows that Microsoft makes a lot of money on Android. Their licensing fees for their "patents" that are incorporated in Android are higher than their licensing fees for their own mobile OS Windows Phone 7.
Everybody that doesn't want to license the technology from them gets sued. Google did nothing there.
Google already stated they were standing behind HTC in Apple's suit against them.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2360917,00.asp
Yes that is because Apple told them not to use their patents. Google has a huge interest that their OS gets deployed so this would really stand in their way.
If Apple had just asked for money HTC probably would have paid.
Microsoft hadn't actually sued HTC did they? But as for whether Google should or shouldn't have stepped in and advised against the licensing, I don't know enough about it. FWIW, Google also licenses many of Microsoft's "patents" for Android use.
There are also some industry watchers who think this was just as much about defending against Apple's suit.
No they haven't because HTC obviously just paid without complaining..
Unfortunately, the EFF is usually on the right side. This matter included. When Apple offers in application purchasing to both its customers and developers, those customers and developers rightfully assume they are protected when utilizing those services. By the same token this patent troll is going after iOS developers, it could also go after people making in application purchases.
The only time I can think the EFF has actively been against Apple is when it argued to the Library of Congress jail breaking and unlocking one's own phone should be legal. As a happy T-Mobile iPhone using customer, I am certainly happy an organization like the EFF exists.
Further, I am uncertain why the EFF should be considered a media whore in this insistence. One of it's staff attorneys merely posted her opinion on the EFF's blog. It didn't contact any media outlets.
The EFF is unimportant in most things and should be ignored. However in this, the one lawyer is correct. I don't think anyone has to worry though. If Apple has any notion that this will affect their bottom line, I can imagine a whole floor of lawyers pouring out, but only after Apple has carefully considered every tiny part.
I also am not sure you can argue with Green Peace's success with Apple. The group pressured Apple into outlining Apple's environmental polices. Steve didn't release that letter because he felt like it
Nonsense. You're confusing correlation and causation. Moreover, when you make utterly silly assertions based on unknowable, unprovable motivations such as 'Steve didn't release that letter because he felt like it,' your post loses credibility.
Greenpeace and its lackeys can claim what they want for marketing or fundraising purposes, but Apple marches to its own tune.