or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lodsys targets new iOS developers as Apple awaits court?s decision
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lodsys targets new iOS developers as Apple awaits court?s decision

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
The ongoing legal battle between Lodsys and iOS developers implementing in-app purchasing capabilities continues to heat up with the patent-holder continuing to contact developers and amending its complaint last week with the addition of two more prominent iOS software makers.

The so-called "patent troll" continues to contact new developers, pressing them to acquire individual licenses for their in-app purchasing technology, despite the fact that Apple, as the operator of the App Store, currently retains a license.

?I've been following the developments with Lodsys, just wondering when they would contact us. And, today was the day," Anthony Campiti, president of Sunstorm Interactive, told AppleInsider. "So, add another developer to the list of companies being pursued by Lodsys. Wish Apple would step up... give us some type of update on their stance, etc.?

The latest complaint, filed July 22, sees one developer, Vietnamese company Wulven Games, dropped from the matter but five new ones added. Chief among the additions are Angry Birds developer Rovio and Electronic Arts, one of the largest game publishers in the world. This move could signal increased confidence on Lodsys? part in suing developers with extensive resources.

In May, Lodsys hit a number of iOS developers with legal threats, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent #7,222,078 stemming from Apple?s in-app purchasing API.

At issue is the fact that, despite Apple acquiring a license from Lodsys for the in-app purchasing patent in question, the patent-holder claims the existing license agreement does not extend to iOS developers themselves. For its part, Apple in May responded to Lodsys with a formal letter requesting the company cease all legal threats against iOS developers.

The App Store operator followed up on July 10 by filing a motion to intervene in the proceedings, but the court has yet to rule on the request.

Some industry watchers have viewed Apple?s official response as unsatisfactory. Patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents expressed displeasure with Apple regarding its efforts surrounding the issue thus far.

?It's disappointing that Apple still doesn't challenge the validity of Lodsys's patents nor the assertion that there is an infringement," he wrote. ?Apple's proposed answer appears to have a flaw that suggests to me that Apple's legal department didn't put nearly as much thought into that one as it does in its major disputes with the likes of Samsung.?

?If you read Apple's proposed answer," he continued, "it doesn't make any reference to the fact that two of the accused products in that dispute are actually Android-based. Lodsys accused not only the iOS but also the Android versions of Illusion Lab's "Labyrinth" and Rovio's "Angry Birds."?

As part of its motion, Apple asked the court to dismiss Lodsys's complaint in its entirety, based on the assertion that Apple's license extends to its developers. However, it's not possible to assume Apple's license extends to Android apps.

"Since Apple's proposed defenses and counterclaim don't make that distinction, it's quite possible that Lodsys could convince the court that Apple needs to resubmit its answer," Mueller wrote.

Lodsys is seeking to acquire from developers 0.575 percent of all U.S. revenue generated from the sale of their iOS titles through the expiration of its patent in 2023.
post #2 of 45
go lodsys
post #3 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Some industry watchers have viewed Apples official response as unsatisfactory. Patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents expressed displeasure with Apple regarding its efforts surrounding the issue thus far.

It's disappointing that Apple still doesn't challenge the validity of Lodsys's patents nor the assertion that there is an infringement," he wrote. Apple's proposed answer appears to have a flaw that suggests to me that Apple's legal department didn't put nearly as much thought into that one as it does in its major disputes with the likes of Samsung.

If you read Apple's proposed answer," he continued, "it doesn't make any reference to the fact that two of the accused products in that dispute are actually Android-based. Lodsys accused not only the iOS but also the Android versions of Illusion Lab's "Labyrinth" and Rovio's "Angry Birds."

What do these guys want? Apple asked the court to throw the case out, right? They have to wait for the court to decide, right? What more should Apple be doing?
post #4 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

What do these guys want? Apple asked the court to throw the case out, right? They have to wait for the court to decide, right? What more should Apple be doing?

  • Helping to build a prior art database
  • Attempting to get the patent invalidated
  • Supporting Developers legal fees

There's 3 options for starters
post #5 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

  • Helping to build a prior art database
  • Attempting to get the patent invalidated
  • Supporting Developers legal fees

There's 3 options for starters

If I thought I had a very good chance of getting the case thrown out, I would also wait for a ruling before I spent more money on the case.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #6 of 45
NPR had a piece on "patent trolls" today. Interesting stuff, but the point validated Google's (current) position on patents - that the system is broken and the Apple/Microsoft evil empire outbid Google, who was just trying to buy the patents to defend itself against "trolls." Seemed to be right out of Google PR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...patents-attack
post #7 of 45
Now that I have listen to NPR's "When Patents Attack" this week, now I know how Lodsys has financial backing. Patent Trolls!!!
post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

NPR had a piece on "patent trolls" today. Interesting stuff, but the point validated Google's (current) position on patents - that the system is broken and the Apple/Microsoft evil empire outbid Google, who was just trying to buy the patents to defend itself against "trolls." Seemed to be right out of Google PR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...patents-attack

"Read all about it! Microsoft [substitute Intellectual Ventures if you wish] patented the numbers one and zero Monday." http://www.theonion.com/articles/mic...es-zeroes,599/
post #9 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

NPR had a piece on "patent trolls" today. Interesting stuff, but the point validated Google's (current) position on patents - that the system is broken and the Apple/Microsoft evil empire outbid Google, who was just trying to buy the patents to defend itself against "trolls." Seemed to be right out of Google PR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...patents-attack

This is now google's position on patents because they lost the bidding. Do you think they would have publicly stated this so-called position if they won?
post #10 of 45
Yes, the system is broken. And I recommend a solution.

The same body that issues patents (uspto.gov) issues trademarks. Patents should be handled the same way as trademarks. With trademarks you can file an "Intent to Use" in commerce. You have six months after your application's approved to actually apply it to a product or service. If you miss that timeframe, you can renew your intent to use for another six months -- up to 5 renewals if necessary. The end goal is to actually use your trademark in commerce; if you don't put it to use yourself, you lose it.

Patent trolls like Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin and Intellectual Ventures NEVER intend to use their patents in commerce but they should be required to. They should STFU and bring their "inventions" to market THEMSELVES or game over.
post #11 of 45
2023!?!?!? WTH!

This system seriously needs to be fixed. Quinn Norton covers a lot of this stuff in depth. I wish more people would be thinking like her (which most of the people on these boards do).

I wonder how screwed over people get before our great cooperating government steps up and fixes the software patent system.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #12 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartyGuy View Post

Yes, the system is broken. And I recommend a solution.

The same body that issues patents (uspto.gov) issues trademarks. Patents should be handled the same way as trademarks. With trademarks you can file an "Intent to Use" in commerce. You have six months after your application's approved to actually apply it to a product or service. If you miss that timeframe, you can renew your intent to use for another six months -- up to 5 renewals if necessary. The end goal is to actually use your trademark in commerce; if you don't put it to use yourself, you lose it.

Patent trolls like Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin and Intellectual Ventures NEVER intend to use their patents in commerce but they should be required to. They should STFU and bring their "inventions" to market THEMSELVES or game over.

Honestly- that is the most intelligent approach to patents I have ever come across. You really exemplify your handle in that post.
post #13 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

go lodsys


bitter much?
post #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

NPR had a piece on "patent trolls" today. Interesting stuff, but the point validated Google's (current) position on patents - that the system is broken and the Apple/Microsoft evil empire outbid Google, who was just trying to buy the patents to defend itself against "trolls." Seemed to be right out of Google PR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...patents-attack

Note that it's said in the program that maybe 30 percent of all patents could be viewed as crap (my take). Such as Lodsys's. Not all of them! For Googles stand to hold, they would need to prove that percentage to be much higher.
post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Honestly- that is the most intelligent approach to patents I have ever come across. You really exemplify your handle in that post.

Thanks. Much appreciated.
post #16 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

bitter much?

no one was commenting so i whacked the hornet's nest with a stick
post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumme-totte View Post

Note that it's said in the program that maybe 30 percent of all patents could be viewed as crap (my take). Such as Lodsys's. Not all of them! For Googles stand to hold, they would need to prove that percentage to be much higher.

30 percent is still far too many.
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

no one was commenting so i whacked the hornet's nest with a stick


not really. look at smartguy's post for intelligence. look at yours for utter lackness of such.



want me to keep going or do you concede your :retardednes:




feel good yet?



patsy much in your bitterness?

or is it all feel good moronic all day?
post #19 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartyGuy View Post

This is now google's position on patents because they lost the bidding. Do you think they would have publicly stated this so-called position if they won?

No - I should have made that clearer. The "patent system is broken" line is sour grapes.
post #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartyGuy View Post

Yes, the system is broken. And I recommend a solution.

The same body that issues patents (uspto.gov) issues trademarks. Patents should be handled the same way as trademarks. With trademarks you can file an "Intent to Use" in commerce. You have six months after your application's approved to actually apply it to a product or service. If you miss that timeframe, you can renew your intent to use for another six months -- up to 5 renewals if necessary. The end goal is to actually use your trademark in commerce; if you don't put it to use yourself, you lose it.

Patent trolls like Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin and Intellectual Ventures NEVER intend to use their patents in commerce but they should be required to. They should STFU and bring their "inventions" to market THEMSELVES or game over.

That's a nice idea but it doesn't fit for all situations. e.g. All smartphones at the moment are using an ARM processor, but ARM don't actually make processors they just design the architecture and license it's use for others to build. So in an operational sense they are know different from Lodsys in that there product is a license or royalty fee for using there technology.
post #21 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

That's a nice idea but it doesn't fit for all situations. e.g. All smartphones at the moment are using an ARM processor, but ARM don't actually make processors they just design the architecture and license it's use for others to build. So in an operational sense they are know different from Lodsys in that there product is a license or royalty fee for using there technology.

ARM has a long history of making CPUs.
post #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

That's a nice idea but it doesn't fit for all situations. e.g. All smartphones at the moment are using an ARM processor, but ARM don't actually make processors they just design the architecture and license it's use for others to build. So in an operational sense they are know different from Lodsys in that there product is a license or royalty fee for using there technology.

Except, of course, that ARM actually invests real R&D dollars into designing simulation models, and real-world FPGA-synthesizable implementations of their designs. to prove that they perform the way ARM claims they should, and are ready for prime time distribution, before they license the technology to 3rd parties for manufacture.

In addition to simply giving its licensees permission to use their IP, ARM also offers value-added expertise and assistance ensuring that the technology works, and that their licensees deliver CPUs that conform to a standard which ensures consistency for developers across all licensees' hardware.

I haven't seen any evidence from Lodsys suggesting that they can offer any such value-added proposition to their licensees.
post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartyGuy View Post

Yes, the system is broken. And I recommend a solution.

The same body that issues patents (uspto.gov) issues trademarks. Patents should be handled the same way as trademarks. With trademarks you can file an "Intent to Use" in commerce. You have six months after your application's approved to actually apply it to a product or service. If you miss that timeframe, you can renew your intent to use for another six months -- up to 5 renewals if necessary. The end goal is to actually use your trademark in commerce; if you don't put it to use yourself, you lose it.

Patent trolls like Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin and Intellectual Ventures NEVER intend to use their patents in commerce but they should be required to. They should STFU and bring their "inventions" to market THEMSELVES or game over.

That is completely absurd.

It is very, very common to develop a new technology and patent it after you invent something but long before it becomes commercially feasible. I worked with a technology that we patented and then spent 6 years finding a way to make it economical enough to introduce to the market. It can often take that long after getting a patent before you even have any idea if you're going to commercialize it.

Heck, look at pharmaceuticals. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a product into commercial use in less than 5 years - and that's the minimum.

People who don't understand product development or patents really shouldn't be commenting.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

ARM has a long history of making CPUs.

But that's all in the past. Today, they don't manufacture any silicon which will ever reach an end customer. They have transitioned to a totally fab-less operation, and they currently depend on licensing their IP to partners -- who release ARM-derived chips under their own brand name -- in order for any of their deigns to reach the marketplace. That being said, please see my remarks above.
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Except, of course, that ARM actually invests real R&D dollars into designing simulation models, and real-world FPGA-synthesizable implementations of their designs. to prove that they perform the way ARM claims they should, and are ready for prime time distribution, before they license the technology to 3rd parties for manufacture.

In addition to simply giving its licensees permission to use their IP, ARM also offers value-added expertise and assistance ensuring that the technology works, and that their licensees deliver CPUs that conform to a standard which ensures consistency for developers across all licensees' hardware.

I haven't seen any evidence from Lodsys suggesting that they can offer any such value-added proposition to their licensees.

So? Patents can't be rejected on the basis that if the company is selling licenses it must also offer value added expertise and assistance. Or the fact that a company invested a lot of money into the idea.

At the end of the day the only thing stopping companies implementing ARM's architecture is its patents, and that's why they make money. Lodsys can argue that in app purchases were there idea which they have a patent for so they can charge a license fee in the same way.

Basing patents around if a company actually sells a product would never work as not every company makes money from selling an actual physical product. The real improvement that needs to happen not allowing patents to exist on the basis that they are really specific and therefore haven't existed before. e.g. Apple has a patent for the pinch gesture on a mobile device or on a capacitive screen (can't remember the exact details), but the pinch gesture already existed 20 years before, and the pinch gesture on the Microsoft Surface is somehow also different. Yet to any normal person it's the same idea and therefore should allow multiple patents.
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartyGuy View Post

Yes, the system is broken. And I recommend a solution.

The same body that issues patents (uspto.gov) issues trademarks. Patents should be handled the same way as trademarks. With trademarks you can file an "Intent to Use" in commerce. You have six months after your application's approved to actually apply it to a product or service. If you miss that timeframe, you can renew your intent to use for another six months -- up to 5 renewals if necessary. The end goal is to actually use your trademark in commerce; if you don't put it to use yourself, you lose it.

Patent trolls like Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin and Intellectual Ventures NEVER intend to use their patents in commerce but they should be required to. They should STFU and bring their "inventions" to market THEMSELVES or game over.

Sorry to double post, but another big issue with this is the definition of a product / service. In this example Lodsys would argue that the license to use the idea is a product which they are selling. But if you say that this isn't enough to justify being a product and you actually have to produce something then it's an awkward defenition of actually producing something. For instance Apple have never produced an iPhone that has been commercially availiable, Foxcon produced them and sold them to Apple who then sell them on. It's Apples deisgn and they own all the rights to the device, but aside from the OS it isn't Apple that made it. Lodsys hasn't produced an app with in app purchasing, but apps with in app purchasing exist, so therefore a product with their technology has been produced and sold.
post #27 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

e.g. Apple has a patent for the pinch gesture on a mobile device or on a capacitive screen (can't remember the exact details)...

Apple has a patent application for a pinch gesture. To date, none of the patents that have actually been granted to Apple actually deal specifically with pinch gestures.
post #28 of 45
Apple's answer is perfectly sufficient. Apple doesn't need to challenge the validity of the patent. Moreover, doing so arguably muddies the water. Apple's arguement is it has a license that covers the third party developers. It would be confusing for it to also argue the patent itself is not valid. Which is it you have a license, or the patent isn't valid.

Further, although Apple could both argue it has a license to the patent and the patent isn't valid, challenging the validity of patent aids Android developers. By challenging the validity of the patent, Apple would be paying to defend Android developers use of the alleged patent. Apple benefits more to have a license that protects Apple developers, but still allows Lodsys to go after Android developers. Apple has already paid for the license. It wants Android developers to have to pay for Android distribution.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Some industry watchers have viewed Apples official response as unsatisfactory. Patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents expressed displeasure with Apple regarding its efforts surrounding the issue thus far.

It's disappointing that Apple still doesn't challenge the validity of Lodsys's patents nor the assertion that there is an infringement," he wrote. Apple's proposed answer appears to have a flaw that suggests to me that Apple's legal department didn't put nearly as much thought into that one as it does in its major disputes with the likes of Samsung.

If you read Apple's proposed answer," he continued, "it doesn't make any reference to the fact that two of the accused products in that dispute are actually Android-based. Lodsys accused not only the iOS but also the Android versions of Illusion Lab's "Labyrinth" and Rovio's "Angry Birds."

As part of its motion, Apple asked the court to dismiss Lodsys's complaint in its entirety, based on the assertion that Apple's license extends to its developers. However, it's not possible to assume Apple's license extends to Android apps.

"Since Apple's proposed defenses and counterclaim don't make that distinction, it's quite possible that Lodsys could convince the court that Apple needs to resubmit its answer," Mueller wrote.

Lodsys is seeking to acquire from developers 0.575 percent of all U.S. revenue generated from the sale of their iOS titles through the expiration of its patent in 2023.
post #29 of 45
Not sure that is correct. How about patent number 74786780 that was granted in 2010?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Apple has a patent application for a pinch gesture. To date, none of the patents that have actually been granted to Apple actually deal specifically with pinch gestures.
post #30 of 45
See my other post. Apple probably doesn't want the patent thrown out. Why would it? It has already paid for a license. It wants the license to cover third party developers on the iOS platform. It doesn't want the license to cover third party developers on the Android platform. Invalidating the patent is less beneficial to Apple then showing the license covers third party iOs developers because Apple wants Android to be perceived as less valuable to third party developers. It might not say it, but Apple is OK with Lodsys going after Android developers.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

  • Helping to build a prior art database
  • Attempting to get the patent invalidated
  • Supporting Developers legal fees

There's 3 options for starters
post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

See my other post. Apple probably doesn't want the patent thrown out. Why would it? It has already paid for a license. It wants the license to cover third party developers on the iOS platform. It doesn't want the license to cover third party developers on the Android platform. Invalidating the patent is less beneficial to Apple then showing the license covers third party iOs developers because Apple wants Android to be perceived as less valuable to third party developers. It might not say it, but Apple is OK with Lodsys going after Android developers.

From what I've read, both Google and Apple received the patent rights from the same source and under the same terms. If Apple's patent rights extend to the developers then so will Google's, would it not?

More concerning to the developer's is who's paying their legal fees to defend an in-app purchasing method mandated by Apple. From all appearances so far they're on their own and likely to find it less expensive to simply pay than fight.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is completely absurd.

It is very, very common to develop a new technology and patent it after you invent something but long before it becomes commercially feasible. I worked with a technology that we patented and then spent 6 years finding a way to make it economical enough to introduce to the market. It can often take that long after getting a patent before you even have any idea if you're going to commercialize it.

Heck, look at pharmaceuticals. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a product into commercial use in less than 5 years - and that's the minimum.

People who don't understand product development or patents really shouldn't be commenting.

It's easy to make reasonable adjustments to the timeframe required to bring something to market. All you're saying is that it may take longer with patents but that doesn't make it absurd. You can't copyright an IDEA, nor should you be able to patent one without making it commercial at some point.
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Sorry to double post, but another big issue with this is the definition of a product / service. In this example Lodsys would argue that the license to use the idea is a product which they are selling. But if you say that this isn't enough to justify being a product and you actually have to produce something then it's an awkward defenition of actually producing something. For instance Apple have never produced an iPhone that has been commercially availiable, Foxcon produced them and sold them to Apple who then sell them on. It's Apples deisgn and they own all the rights to the device, but aside from the OS it isn't Apple that made it. Lodsys hasn't produced an app with in app purchasing, but apps with in app purchasing exist, so therefore a product with their technology has been produced and sold.

By every possible definition Apple produces the iPhone.
post #34 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartyGuy View Post

It's easy to make reasonable adjustments to the timeframe required to bring something to market. All you're saying is that it may take longer with patents but that doesn't make it absurd. You can't copyright an IDEA, nor should you be able to patent one without making it commercial at some point.

Your idea is one of those superficially plausible but completely impractical ones that is brought up time and again by people. It is unworkable and would serve only to introduce orders of magnitude more complexity to patent litigation. Suddenly every patent lawsuit would have an enormous new section where both parties argued over exactly what constitute a 'product'.

Worse your 'solution' would kill ARM while leaving 1-click in place.

The problem is not that one can patent things without immediately commercializing them, the problem is that patents are being allowed that are bad patents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartyGuy View Post

By every possible definition Apple produces the iPhone.

You can't propose a massive change to existing law on the basis that it works for one case. That's so silly that it should be obvious to anybody.
post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

See my other post. Apple probably doesn't want the patent thrown out. Why would it? It has already paid for a license. It wants the license to cover third party developers on the iOS platform. It doesn't want the license to cover third party developers on the Android platform. Invalidating the patent is less beneficial to Apple then showing the license covers third party iOs developers because Apple wants Android to be perceived as less valuable to third party developers. It might not say it, but Apple is OK with Lodsys going after Android developers.

The main reason why Apple should do more than just hope that their license covers their developers is that their behaviour here will significantly influence perception of the App Store ecosystem as a target for Trolls.
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

So? Patents can't be rejected on the basis that if the company is selling licenses it must also offer value added expertise and assistance. Or the fact that a company invested a lot of money into the idea.

At the end of the day the only thing stopping companies implementing ARM's architecture is its patents, and that's why they make money. Lodsys can argue that in app purchases were there idea which they have a patent for so they can charge a license fee in the same way.

Basing patents around if a company actually sells a product would never work as not every company makes money from selling an actual physical product. The real improvement that needs to happen not allowing patents to exist on the basis that they are really specific and therefore haven't existed before. e.g. Apple has a patent for the pinch gesture on a mobile device or on a capacitive screen (can't remember the exact details), but the pinch gesture already existed 20 years before, and the pinch gesture on the Microsoft Surface is somehow also different. Yet to any normal person it's the same idea and therefore should allow multiple patents.

Are you really trying to argue that in app purchases are the same thing as CPU architecture? I think it's just a bad patent to be granting someone personally.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Your idea is one of those superficially plausible but completely impractical ones that is brought up time and again by people. It is unworkable and would serve only to introduce orders of magnitude more complexity to patent litigation. Suddenly every patent lawsuit would have an enormous new section where both parties argued over exactly what constitute a 'product'.

Worse your 'solution' would kill ARM while leaving 1-click in place.

The problem is not that one can patent things without immediately commercializing them, the problem is that patents are being allowed that are bad patents.

Yes part of it, the other problem is trolls. This is the most serious problem imo. People who never have any intention of using the patents, buy them for the sole purpose of suing people, wasting our tax dollars.

Beyond that, there needs to be more restrictions of where the patent lawsuit can even be filed. A extremely large majority of the patent trials are filed in Marshall, TX where they rule in favor of the patent holder a majority of the time.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #38 of 45
[QUOTE=AppleInsider;1909013]

“I've been following the developments with Lodsys, just wondering when they would contact us. And, today was the day," Anthony Campiti, president of Sunstorm Interactive, told AppleInsider. "So, add another developer to the list of companies being pursued by Lodsys. Wish Apple would step up... give us some type of update on their stance, etc.”

The latest complaint, filed July 22, sees one developer, Vietnamese company Wulven Games, dropped from the matter but five new ones added. Chief among the additions are Angry Birds developer Rovio and Electronic Arts, one of the largest game publishers in the world. This move could signal increased confidence on Lodsys’ part in suing developers with extensive resources.


“It's disappointing that Apple still doesn't challenge the validity of Lodsys's patents nor the assertion that there is an infringement," he wrote. “Apple's proposed answer appears to have a flaw that suggests to me that Apple's legal department didn't put nearly as much thought into that one as it does in its major disputes with the likes of Samsung.”


I've a few comments on the above snippits from the origional posting.

1) It might appear Lodsys is exerting 'pressure' on individual developers in hope that s/he will sign some form of contract above and beoynd their original/ current Apple agreement. Thereby perceptually reinforcing Lodsys's position in the courts.

2) While it's easy to proclaim "Apple's not doing this, and Apple's not doing that, and Apple should be doing this ,that or the other thing", in reality Apple has filed a motion with the court and is awaiting a decision. That does not mean that they will or will not take further action, but that they have 'interceeded' (in a manner the Apple legal team has deemed appropriate) and are awaiting a legal response. It might be considered premature for Apple to file additional motions without awaiting the outcome of the initial filing.

Lastly, in regards to the patent ligigation in general, there appears to be a growing body of evidence that plaintifs tend to prevail in east texass court rulings. One wonders why this is and why companies who have minimal if any business presence there, file procedings with that particular court. Seemss from the information posied on this forum, that a degree of bias appears to exist.
post #39 of 45
I would think that the existence of 'shareware' software would invalidate their patent. Shareware software has had the option to upgrade to the full version for years.
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Yes part of it, the other problem is trolls. This is the most serious problem imo. People who never have any intention of using the patents, buy them for the sole purpose of suing people, wasting our tax dollars.

The other side is that every this is how all universities commercialize their research. Sorry but no matter how convenient it would be, the problem isn't the trolls - the problem is the patents. The solution will lie in patent reform, not in trying to treat one set of patent owning entities differently from another.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lodsys targets new iOS developers as Apple awaits court?s decision