Lodsys targets new iOS developers as Apple awaits court?s decision
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.
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.
Comments
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."?
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?
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- Helping to build a prior art database
- Attempting to get the patent invalidated
- Supporting Developers legal fees
There's 3 options for startersIf 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.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...patents-attack
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/
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?
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.
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.
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.
go lodsys
bitter much?
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.
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.
bitter much?
no one was commenting so i whacked the hornet's nest with a stick
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.
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
feel good yet?
patsy much in your bitterness?
or is it all feel good moronic
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.
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.
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.