Lodsys explains its legal threats: Apple is licensed, iOS developers are not

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 76
    revilrerevilre Posts: 67member
    This is just silly as the in-app purchasing is Apple software that the app maker is using. They aren't writing in-app purchasing software. This would mean that if someone built a website using flash, they'd be responsible for having licenses for any patented technologies Adobe has licenses for?
  • Reply 22 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post


    Patent system has major flaw...



    Patent should be reserve to real product and manufacturing process only. Shouldn't be able to patent theoretical and wishful thinking like majority of pseudo software patent and gene patent.



    I should summit this patent: Method to interact with an electronic device via key or tactile input peripheral. And sue every tech company in this world..



    I think Patents are useless unless you are going to use them and develop a actual product. Some company can patent a special button that opens a pop-up with special information in it.



    Technology Patents should expire like domains. Every year you have to renew your patent and pay good money to do so. That way you can determine that this Patent is not a fictional product or item.
  • Reply 23 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grobelaar View Post


    Here's another analogy...

    Oh we want an analogy - it'd be a bit like making musicians pay a license to have their music on cds.



    Actually, it would be like Wurlitzer selling a piano to a concert hall, then requiring any musician who uses it to pay them as well.
  • Reply 24 of 76
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sichy View Post


    Just ignore the trolls like that, no way it can go through, would be interesting to see them being crushed with Apple's hammer, just waiting for the countdown.



    The problem is that it doesn't matter if its defensible or not.

    The small devs are still required to respond, which means time and money, no matter how seemingly trivial. For a one-person shop, this kind of thing can be a business killer.

    Apple really does need to step up and offer a blanket defense fund or resource for their developers.
  • Reply 25 of 76
    Apple:



    "Sorry its taken 2 months to approve your app but you app but it is infringing on 20 Patents what would you like to do?"



    A: Licence Patent and pay more money.

    B: Redesign Your App.

    C: Back to the drawing board.

    D: Take Legal Action.
  • Reply 26 of 76
    ghostface147ghostface147 Posts: 1,629member
    I think the fact that Apple has already licensed it and given it as part of their framework to the devs protects the devs. LIke the company said, they believe that the license doesn't extend to the devs. Sounds like to me they are hoping someone will bite and set precedence.
  • Reply 27 of 76
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Yep that is what they are claiming. So lets see the paperwork, it is possible that that licensing actually does give Apple the right for developers to use the tech without also paying. After all that is why Apple would want it so why wouldn't they make sure it was included.



    It is also possible Apple has licensed this for the own in-App purchase like iTune and App Store (TM) but not for developers use. We'll have to wait as see the paperwork.
  • Reply 28 of 76
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    I don't believe them that this is not about pressuring Apple. Surely they do not want to administer thousands of little agreements, some only worth a few dollars each? They are aiming at getting Apple to automatically license it for you when you turn on in-app purchasing, and to automatically forward the 0.5% to Lodsys.
  • Reply 29 of 76
    In other words they are trying to double dip. They could get in trouble doing this. Apple may decide to withhold their licensing fee in response. In fact it sounds like they gave Apple the arguement that this patent doesn't apply to them. They are the landowner/maker of the tools.
  • Reply 30 of 76
    Is there any official comment from Apple?
  • Reply 31 of 76
    This problem is a perception issue. If developers BELIEVE that they will be sued if they use IAP then it will either stop using IAP (which is a revenue stream for Apple) or stop developing on the platform all together. And it could stop new developers from starting iOS development.
  • Reply 32 of 76
    julesltjuleslt Posts: 26member
    I presume someone has patented the patent-troll process? Can't we use them to bring all the other patent trolls down.



    I don't think this is double-dipping, as Apple themselves do 'In-App' purchases (and have done for some time).



    On the other hand, there's something fishy here. Either Apple's lawyers did a really bad job on the contract, or Lodsys don't have a leg to stand on or Apple have been remiss in disclosing the (small) additional costs to developers.



    Given the percentages involved, I would think Apple would simply have swallowed it as part of their 30% - i.e. the way they do with the card processing fees, currency conversion, etc. Which makes me think that Lodsys may be trying it on.
  • Reply 33 of 76
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cylack View Post


    Software and gene patents are bs.



    Just wish China and India would give the US the middle finger and blatantly disregard all these patents.



    If you can't make a physical product out of your ideas it should not be patentable. We all pay the costs for these patent trolls' greed.



    I think that's a bit harsh on software developers to be honest. Why should I, as a hardware guy, be able to protect my efforts to create something, but a software engineer shouldn't.



    What I have a problem with is the patenting of ideas, without any product of any kind behind them. If the only thing you have to sell is a license, then I'm not sure that should be patentable, but if you have either something physical, or some code to sell, that's a different matter.



    Not sure which one of those two this company falls into.
  • Reply 34 of 76
    timgriff84timgriff84 Posts: 912member
    This seems unfair but it really depends on what Apple has licensed. The fact Apple, Google and Microsoft have all paid for a license suggests its a legit patent that isn't with challenging.



    If Apple bought a license for themselves rather than for anything running on a device they produce then this company would be right. Just because a developers software runs on an iPhone and is distributed by Apple, there isn't anything between the dev and Apple which means the dev can use apples licenses. What's bad is Apple have potentially urged devs to use something that they new they could be sued over. A statement from Apple is long overdue on this one now.
  • Reply 35 of 76
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,934member
    I wonder if the real target of Lodsys is Apple. By making things impossible for developers, and therefore untenable for Apple, Lodsys hopes Apple will step in and bail out developers by:



    1) renegotiating their own license to a higher rate to include developers



    or



    2) paying the licensing fee for the developers
  • Reply 36 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by felixdabid View Post


    Is there any official comment from Apple?



    No, and there shouldn't be. Apple should address this problem through the proper channels not the media. When Apple puts out a press release I expect it to say the problem is resolved and not much else.
  • Reply 37 of 76
    nobodyynobodyy Posts: 377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post


    No, and there shouldn't be. Apple should address this problem through the proper channels not the media. When Apple puts out a press release I expect it to say the problem is resolved and not much else.



    Considering developers get a large majority of their information about Apple from the media, this is something that should be addressed publicly. Without any sort of acknowledgement, as far as we know, we are at risk.



    Edit: Just to clarify, I know Apple has direct links to developers, but those are limited and nothing on this issue has been addressed - I'm talking more for behind the scene issues that are brought up by the media, like this.
  • Reply 38 of 76
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I think Lodsys may wake a sleeping giant if they keep harassing the villagers. I won’t be surprised if Lodsys quietly drops this for no apparent reason.



    Are you suggesting Apple will make them an un'offerta che non possono rifiutare.
  • Reply 39 of 76
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 40 of 76
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    This seems unfair but it really depends on what Apple has licensed. The fact Apple, Google and Microsoft have all paid for a license suggests its a legit patent that isn't with challenging.



    If Apple bought a license for themselves rather than for anything running on a device they produce then this company would be right. Just because a developers software runs on an iPhone and is distributed by Apple, there isn't anything between the dev and Apple which means the dev can use apples licenses. What's bad is Apple have potentially urged devs to use something that they new they could be sued over. A statement from Apple is long overdue on this one now.



    They are looking for money from Apple. It's Apple's code sold on Apple's Itunes which Apple requires in their developer agreement making this issue dicey in court. A win in court is far from assured. Apple needs to offer a blanket defense outright and perhaps even challenge the patent. They'd certainly get a lot of mileage out of it from a developers perspective and they have the money to do it. Once the developers are pissed off for too long...they simply won't develop. That's bad for Apple and everyone who might be exposed. Another question is why didn't this company sue before now?
Sign In or Register to comment.