Aren't there other companies sueing app developers? I read briefly about at least one other company in an article that said there were more companies sueing. Why does Lodsys get all the coverage?
They are getting so much coverage because Apple went public saying that their deal with the original company (which Lodsys bought) covered the app developers and Lodsys is saying no it didn't.
Sometimes I wonder if Apple could sue Lodsys for breach of contract over not honoring the original deal and get back all the money they paid. they could use it to pay off the court costs for all these little guys
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
Bit like how you can buy shares in a company, never do any work for them but demand part of the profit. Or buy a building, never live in it but charge others to. Or basically anything that makes money out of an investment/ownership.
Not exactly. It has to do in part with intention. The intention of patents is so that active creators can protect their work during and after creating it.
The intention in buying shares is to loan money to a company to do whatever they do. The intention of buying a building is often to rent out its space (which is why there are zoning and permit laws you have to compile with when you agree to buy the building).
Folks like Lodsys buy control over a patent with merely the intention of suing folks. In the case of Lodsys, smaller folks they figured would fold fast cause they wouldn't have a clue that they were already covered by another deal.
That does just sound like a child whining because there not getting their own way. There already paying Apple 30% for their part of the tech, 2.5% to Lodsys for the bit they own isn't exactly huge in comparison.
Developers just need to face the fact you don't get the whole of the selling price. 30% to Apple, 20% to sales tax, maybe 5% in patents they've violated, around 20% - 30% in income tax or company tax on the profit. If they can't live on 32% of the selling price minus their own costs then maybe they've set the price to low.
it's not actually 2.5%.. it's .575%.
Since you don't really know much about the subject I'm not really going to try and discuss it with you. You are held back by some misplaced sense of fairness or righteousness. I assure you, it's very misplaced in this particular instance of patent law.
Read Lodys website- their FAQ. Then read a patent lawyer's blog called fossblog- in particular, all of the lodsys tagged articles.
Then you should have a good handle on the facts of the situation... right?
Then read the link I posted above about the judgement against Eon-Net and put the precedent 2 and 2 together.
Then come back to the discussion armed and ready with some facts knowledge, and hopefully, an educated opinion on the matter leaving your knee-jerk assumptions behind.
Not exactly. It has to do in part with intention. The intention of patents is so that active creators can protect their work during and after creating it.
The intention in buying shares is to loan money to a company to do whatever they do. The intention of buying a building is often to rent out its space (which is why there are zoning and permit laws you have to compile with when you agree to buy the building).
Folks like Lodsys buy control over a patent with merely the intention of suing folks. In the case of Lodsys, smaller folks they figured would fold fast cause they wouldn't have a clue that they were already covered by another deal.
I think folks like Lodsys would be much happier if people just bought the license rather than suing each one of them. They bought an invention with the intention of charging people a license fee to use it. Just like buying a building with the intention of charging someone to live in it. If the people using what you own don't pay your only option is to sue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR
it's not actually 2.5%.. it's .575%.
Since you don't really know much about the subject I'm not really going to try and discuss it with you. You are held back by some misplaced sense of fairness or righteousness. I assure you, it's very misplaced in this particular instance of patent law.
Read Lodys website- their FAQ. Then read a patent lawyer's blog called fossblog- in particular, all of the lodsys tagged articles.
Then you should have a good handle on the facts of the situation... right?
Then read the link I posted above about the judgement against Eon-Net and put the precedent 2 and 2 together.
Then come back to the discussion armed and ready with some facts knowledge, and hopefully, an educated opinion on the matter leaving your knee-jerk assumptions behind.
Ok so I've got the percentage Lodsys want's wrong and the amount there asking for is tiny compared to what developers are paying everyone else for the service. Even more reason for developers to just pay what they owe. Lodsys has a valid patent, deveolpers should pay up if they wan't to use the tech.
I had to laugh when I read your profile - I assume it is a joke since "Los Gatos" is spanish for "the cats". That is unless of course there is some english entity I am unaware of referred to as Gatos!
Edit: Never mind. After looking further at your profile and seeing your Occupation listed as "Technical Rider" it explained a lot.
I think folks like Lodsys would be much happier if people just bought the license rather than suing each one of them. They bought an invention with the intention of charging people a license fee to use it. Just like buying a building with the intention of charging someone to live in it. If the people using what you own don't pay your only option is to sue.
Ok so I've got the percentage Lodsys want's wrong and the amount there asking for is tiny compared to what developers are paying everyone else for the service. Even more reason for developers to just pay what they owe. Lodsys has a valid patent, deveolpers should pay up if they wan't to use the tech.
Well... I knew you were going to say that. And frankly, that's an intellectually bankrupt reply that just goes to showcase how little you understand of the situation.. But seems like you are ok with that. ah well.. Why learn about a subject, right ?
Shrug... Smarter people are on the case so have fun with your opinion.
Comments
Aren't there other companies sueing app developers? I read briefly about at least one other company in an article that said there were more companies sueing. Why does Lodsys get all the coverage?
They are getting so much coverage because Apple went public saying that their deal with the original company (which Lodsys bought) covered the app developers and Lodsys is saying no it didn't.
Sometimes I wonder if Apple could sue Lodsys for breach of contract over not honoring the original deal and get back all the money they paid. they could use it to pay off the court costs for all these little guys
Bit like how you can buy shares in a company, never do any work for them but demand part of the profit. Or buy a building, never live in it but charge others to. Or basically anything that makes money out of an investment/ownership.
Not exactly. It has to do in part with intention. The intention of patents is so that active creators can protect their work during and after creating it.
The intention in buying shares is to loan money to a company to do whatever they do. The intention of buying a building is often to rent out its space (which is why there are zoning and permit laws you have to compile with when you agree to buy the building).
Folks like Lodsys buy control over a patent with merely the intention of suing folks. In the case of Lodsys, smaller folks they figured would fold fast cause they wouldn't have a clue that they were already covered by another deal.
That does just sound like a child whining because there not getting their own way. There already paying Apple 30% for their part of the tech, 2.5% to Lodsys for the bit they own isn't exactly huge in comparison.
Developers just need to face the fact you don't get the whole of the selling price. 30% to Apple, 20% to sales tax, maybe 5% in patents they've violated, around 20% - 30% in income tax or company tax on the profit. If they can't live on 32% of the selling price minus their own costs then maybe they've set the price to low.
it's not actually 2.5%.. it's .575%.
Since you don't really know much about the subject I'm not really going to try and discuss it with you. You are held back by some misplaced sense of fairness or righteousness. I assure you, it's very misplaced in this particular instance of patent law.
Read Lodys website- their FAQ. Then read a patent lawyer's blog called fossblog- in particular, all of the lodsys tagged articles.
Then you should have a good handle on the facts of the situation... right?
Then read the link I posted above about the judgement against Eon-Net and put the precedent 2 and 2 together.
Then come back to the discussion armed and ready with some facts knowledge, and hopefully, an educated opinion on the matter leaving your knee-jerk assumptions behind.
Not exactly. It has to do in part with intention. The intention of patents is so that active creators can protect their work during and after creating it.
The intention in buying shares is to loan money to a company to do whatever they do. The intention of buying a building is often to rent out its space (which is why there are zoning and permit laws you have to compile with when you agree to buy the building).
Folks like Lodsys buy control over a patent with merely the intention of suing folks. In the case of Lodsys, smaller folks they figured would fold fast cause they wouldn't have a clue that they were already covered by another deal.
I think folks like Lodsys would be much happier if people just bought the license rather than suing each one of them. They bought an invention with the intention of charging people a license fee to use it. Just like buying a building with the intention of charging someone to live in it. If the people using what you own don't pay your only option is to sue.
it's not actually 2.5%.. it's .575%.
Since you don't really know much about the subject I'm not really going to try and discuss it with you. You are held back by some misplaced sense of fairness or righteousness. I assure you, it's very misplaced in this particular instance of patent law.
Read Lodys website- their FAQ. Then read a patent lawyer's blog called fossblog- in particular, all of the lodsys tagged articles.
Then you should have a good handle on the facts of the situation... right?
Then read the link I posted above about the judgement against Eon-Net and put the precedent 2 and 2 together.
Then come back to the discussion armed and ready with some facts knowledge, and hopefully, an educated opinion on the matter leaving your knee-jerk assumptions behind.
Ok so I've got the percentage Lodsys want's wrong and the amount there asking for is tiny compared to what developers are paying everyone else for the service. Even more reason for developers to just pay what they owe. Lodsys has a valid patent, deveolpers should pay up if they wan't to use the tech.
...Los Gatos (spanish for the Gatos)...
I had to laugh when I read your profile - I assume it is a joke since "Los Gatos" is spanish for "the cats". That is unless of course there is some english entity I am unaware of referred to as Gatos!
Edit: Never mind. After looking further at your profile and seeing your Occupation listed as "Technical Rider" it explained a lot.
I think folks like Lodsys would be much happier if people just bought the license rather than suing each one of them. They bought an invention with the intention of charging people a license fee to use it. Just like buying a building with the intention of charging someone to live in it. If the people using what you own don't pay your only option is to sue.
Ok so I've got the percentage Lodsys want's wrong and the amount there asking for is tiny compared to what developers are paying everyone else for the service. Even more reason for developers to just pay what they owe. Lodsys has a valid patent, deveolpers should pay up if they wan't to use the tech.
Well... I knew you were going to say that. And frankly, that's an intellectually bankrupt reply that just goes to showcase how little you understand of the situation.. But seems like you are ok with that. ah well.. Why learn about a subject, right
Shrug... Smarter people are on the case so have fun with your opinion.