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.
The way Apple might look at this is that they're offering a service to developers to monetize their apps, and along comes patent troll attacking those developers for using that service. That should present a problem directly to Apple as it threatens part of the App Store ecosystem. In short, it's an indirect attack on Apple. I'm sure patent troll's lawyers are rubbing their hands together with glee; even if they lose the patent case, they get to bill their client for legal fees.
I think that Apple believed that developers were covered by Apple's license. I expect the attorneys are going over the license now to see if they erred. Only after they've decided on a course of action will they make a more detailed statement. Apple hasn't had much time yet to review the license in detail.
I think Apple will eventually indemnify developers in this matter, if it comes to that, because it would hurt their ecosystem not to. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple sued these trolls. Alternatively, they may renegotiate the license.
And make no mistake about it, these guys are trolls. First they get Apple to pay, and now they're double-dipping. Perhaps it's legal (perhaps not), but definitely unethical (not that that matters to corporations).
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Apple is already licensing the patent (implicitly validating it)
No, Apple purchasing a license isn't an implicit validation of the patent, anymore than buying auto insurance implies that you expect to get into an accident; it's merely an acknowledgement that an accident could happen. Apple probably determined it would be cheaper to license than fight it in court. They may be reevaluating that decision now.
Must every organization or person be demonized by the Apple Apologist Army for having the incredible temerity to actually make a constructive suggestion to Steve Jobs.
Apple developers are pleading with Apple to do or say something on this topic. Silence on a controversy is not good. Apple does not have to commit to anything, simply say something!!
Must every organization or person be demonized by the Apple Apologist Army for having the incredible temerity to actually make a constructive suggestion to Steve Jobs.
Apple developers are pleading with Apple to do or say something on this topic. Silence on a controversy is not good. Apple does not have to commit to anything, simply say something!!
The AAA s simply being realistic. What are you hoping will happen? That every platform that could get sued on this issue takes these Lodsys guys on individually? That Apple come up with some type of knee-jerk response?
There may be virtue to finding a collective action solution here, and to carefully thinking through the consequences of different courses of action.
The AAA s simply being realistic. What are you hoping will happen? That every platform that could get sued on this issue takes these Lodsys guys on individually? That Apple come up with some type of knee-jerk response?
There may be virtue to finding a collective action solution here, and to carefully thinking through the consequences of different courses of action.
I think Apple should definitely stand behind these developers, and vigorously defend them from this patent trolling, for this or any other feature that is directly supported by the iOS SDK and the use of which is encouraged or required by Apple. It's the right thing to do from both a business perspective and ethically.
But, there is also virtue in keeping your enemy unaware of your plans until you launch your attack, a virtue Apple understands very well.
Apple is already licensing the patent (implicitly validating it)
Based on what? The claims of a patent troll? It would be one thing if Apple licensed it explicity, but this has the smell of something that was bundled in with another bundle of cross-licensed patents.
So Apple could have licensed it without going out of their way to. But it sounds impressive to pitch it as if Apple went out of their way to explicitly license it because it had value!
Quote:
so Apple should just make this go away by paying the 0.575% out of the30% they collect. It's pocket change in the big scheme of things.
So because it's "pocket change", and because Apple makes this overly onerous 30% that people who have never run a business or have any concept of overhead think is some windfall, they should just cover it?
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.
I think they have moved past Greenpeace and are moving into People Eating Tastey Animals territory
Hopefully they won't venture into Westboro territory (those idiots are neither baptists nor a church).
The way Apple might look at this is that they're offering a service to developers to monetize their apps, and along comes patent troll attacking those developers for using that service. That should present a problem directly to Apple as it threatens part of the App Store ecosystem.
Perhaps, perhaps not. One thing is sure, Apple will respond when they are good and ready.
If it is seen as a direct threat to the App store ecosystem, I think it's a safe assumption Apple will get involved. Superficially it looks like a pretty flimsy patent too. The Macalops take on it was pretty spot on.
The suggestion that Apple runs around randomly signing license agreements without reading them isn't exactly flattering to them.
Reading them is one thing. Interpreting them the same way as the author is another. I suspect Apple's take on the patent differs from Lodsys's. Apple probably expected that their license covered their developers too. That Lodsys has a different view explains why Apple is now "studying the issue." Trolls!
So because it's "pocket change", and because Apple makes this overly onerous 30% that people who have never run a business or have any concept of overhead think is some windfall, they should just cover it?
No.
Because developers have paid Apple $100.00 for the rights to develop against their API it's reasonable to expect that you can actually use the damn thing.
But then again, it's reasonable assume Apple wouldn't let developers steal your private data and not tell you about it, or that you could work in a factory that makes Apple products and not get blown up, but those things didn't work out either.
So you think Apple released that letter out of the blue? Come on. Green Peace came out with its bogus report. New organizations jumped on the story. The story keep up for an extended period of time with no sign of slowing down. When Apple faces enough long term pressure, it acts. In my opinion, it seems hard not to credit Green Peace as the catalyst.
As far as credibility goes, I doubt anybody on this site has credibility. That would require us to be sitting in meetings with Steve Jobs. All most of us have is opinion. Last I checked, you don't need to prove an opinion.
It is also worth pointing out this Site is devoted to generally unprovable rumors. Yet, here we both are posting on it.
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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.
The suggestion that Apple runs around randomly signing license agreements without reading them isn't exactly flattering to them.
Don't be ridiculous - I neither said nor implied such a thing.
Apple owns thousands of patents. Some they filed, some they licensed, some they acquired. In the acquisitions, sometimes there are lots of patents bundled in when they are targeting just one or two key patents.
Now that they have responded, it's clear that they explicitly licensed this one (which is surprising because it seems like such a weak patent - but that's another topic). But for companies like Apple that have huge patent portfolio's, I wouldn't be surprised if the more obscure ones would take a little time to locate and research.
Not all patents are created equal or acquired (directly or indirectly) for the same reasons or in the same ways....
Because developers have paid Apple $100.00 for the rights to develop against their API it's reasonable to expect that you can actually use the damn thing.
If there is a real dependency then I agree. And in this case there is a clear extension of Apple's license to the developers, hence them stepping in. But to just blanket assume they should immediately jump in and get involved is naive and unrealistic. Hence the EFF being (rightly) called out for attention whoring before the facts were in.
Quote:
But then again, it's reasonable assume Apple wouldn't let developers steal your private data and not tell you about it
Good grief, are you an aid to Senator Franken or something? Talk about being all over the place...
Quote:
or that you could work in a factory that makes Apple products and not get blown up, but those things didn't work out either.
Nice red herring but I'll still bite - Industrial accidents happen and Foxconn manufacturers for more than just Apple.
Funny how people who bitch about the "Apple Tax" also want to be critical of overseas production of product. We don't manufacture lots of things in the US for lots of reasons - many of which directly affect costs that everyone loves to complain about. It's just as stupid as the complaining about WalMart - but they grew as large and fast as they did for a reason (i.e. may of the complainers ended up shopping there!)
Comments
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.
The way Apple might look at this is that they're offering a service to developers to monetize their apps, and along comes patent troll attacking those developers for using that service. That should present a problem directly to Apple as it threatens part of the App Store ecosystem. In short, it's an indirect attack on Apple. I'm sure patent troll's lawyers are rubbing their hands together with glee; even if they lose the patent case, they get to bill their client for legal fees.
I think Apple will eventually indemnify developers in this matter, if it comes to that, because it would hurt their ecosystem not to. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple sued these trolls. Alternatively, they may renegotiate the license.
And make no mistake about it, these guys are trolls. First they get Apple to pay, and now they're double-dipping. Perhaps it's legal (perhaps not), but definitely unethical (not that that matters to corporations).
Apple is already licensing the patent (implicitly validating it)
No, Apple purchasing a license isn't an implicit validation of the patent, anymore than buying auto insurance implies that you expect to get into an accident; it's merely an acknowledgement that an accident could happen. Apple probably determined it would be cheaper to license than fight it in court. They may be reevaluating that decision now.
Unfortunately, the EFF is usually on the right side. ....
Thanks for the laugh.
Apple developers are pleading with Apple to do or say something on this topic. Silence on a controversy is not good. Apple does not have to commit to anything, simply say something!!
Must every organization or person be demonized by the Apple Apologist Army for having the incredible temerity to actually make a constructive suggestion to Steve Jobs.
Apple developers are pleading with Apple to do or say something on this topic. Silence on a controversy is not good. Apple does not have to commit to anything, simply say something!!
The AAA s simply being realistic. What are you hoping will happen? That every platform that could get sued on this issue takes these Lodsys guys on individually? That Apple come up with some type of knee-jerk response?
There may be virtue to finding a collective action solution here, and to carefully thinking through the consequences of different courses of action.
The AAA s simply being realistic. What are you hoping will happen? That every platform that could get sued on this issue takes these Lodsys guys on individually? That Apple come up with some type of knee-jerk response?
There may be virtue to finding a collective action solution here, and to carefully thinking through the consequences of different courses of action.
I think Apple should definitely stand behind these developers, and vigorously defend them from this patent trolling, for this or any other feature that is directly supported by the iOS SDK and the use of which is encouraged or required by Apple. It's the right thing to do from both a business perspective and ethically.
But, there is also virtue in keeping your enemy unaware of your plans until you launch your attack, a virtue Apple understands very well.
Apple is already licensing the patent (implicitly validating it)
Based on what? The claims of a patent troll? It would be one thing if Apple licensed it explicity, but this has the smell of something that was bundled in with another bundle of cross-licensed patents.
So Apple could have licensed it without going out of their way to. But it sounds impressive to pitch it as if Apple went out of their way to explicitly license it because it had value!
so Apple should just make this go away by paying the 0.575% out of the30% they collect. It's pocket change in the big scheme of things.
So because it's "pocket change", and because Apple makes this overly onerous 30% that people who have never run a business or have any concept of overhead think is some windfall, they should just cover it?
Unbelievable
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.
I think they have moved past Greenpeace and are moving into People Eating Tastey Animals territory
Hopefully they won't venture into Westboro territory
The way Apple might look at this is that they're offering a service to developers to monetize their apps, and along comes patent troll attacking those developers for using that service. That should present a problem directly to Apple as it threatens part of the App Store ecosystem.
Perhaps, perhaps not. One thing is sure, Apple will respond when they are good and ready.
If it is seen as a direct threat to the App store ecosystem, I think it's a safe assumption Apple will get involved. Superficially it looks like a pretty flimsy patent too. The Macalops take on it was pretty spot on.
The suggestion that Apple runs around randomly signing license agreements without reading them isn't exactly flattering to them.
Reading them is one thing. Interpreting them the same way as the author is another. I suspect Apple's take on the patent differs from Lodsys's. Apple probably expected that their license covered their developers too. That Lodsys has a different view explains why Apple is now "studying the issue." Trolls!
So because it's "pocket change", and because Apple makes this overly onerous 30% that people who have never run a business or have any concept of overhead think is some windfall, they should just cover it?
No.
Because developers have paid Apple $100.00 for the rights to develop against their API it's reasonable to expect that you can actually use the damn thing.
But then again, it's reasonable assume Apple wouldn't let developers steal your private data and not tell you about it, or that you could work in a factory that makes Apple products and not get blown up, but those things didn't work out either.
As far as credibility goes, I doubt anybody on this site has credibility. That would require us to be sitting in meetings with Steve Jobs. All most of us have is opinion. Last I checked, you don't need to prove an opinion.
It is also worth pointing out this Site is devoted to generally unprovable rumors. Yet, here we both are posting on it.
Cheers
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.
The suggestion that Apple runs around randomly signing license agreements without reading them isn't exactly flattering to them.
Don't be ridiculous - I neither said nor implied such a thing.
Apple owns thousands of patents. Some they filed, some they licensed, some they acquired. In the acquisitions, sometimes there are lots of patents bundled in when they are targeting just one or two key patents.
Now that they have responded, it's clear that they explicitly licensed this one (which is surprising because it seems like such a weak patent - but that's another topic). But for companies like Apple that have huge patent portfolio's, I wouldn't be surprised if the more obscure ones would take a little time to locate and research.
Not all patents are created equal or acquired (directly or indirectly) for the same reasons or in the same ways....
Because developers have paid Apple $100.00 for the rights to develop against their API it's reasonable to expect that you can actually use the damn thing.
If there is a real dependency then I agree. And in this case there is a clear extension of Apple's license to the developers, hence them stepping in. But to just blanket assume they should immediately jump in and get involved is naive and unrealistic. Hence the EFF being (rightly) called out for attention whoring before the facts were in.
But then again, it's reasonable assume Apple wouldn't let developers steal your private data and not tell you about it
Good grief, are you an aid to Senator Franken or something? Talk about being all over the place...
or that you could work in a factory that makes Apple products and not get blown up, but those things didn't work out either.
Nice red herring but I'll still bite - Industrial accidents happen and Foxconn manufacturers for more than just Apple.
Funny how people who bitch about the "Apple Tax" also want to be critical of overseas production of product. We don't manufacture lots of things in the US for lots of reasons - many of which directly affect costs that everyone loves to complain about. It's just as stupid as the complaining about WalMart - but they grew as large and fast as they did for a reason (i.e. may of the complainers ended up shopping there!)