Apple needs to find some small company that was just sued by these trolls and buy them quickly then they take on the ownership of the sued company and can fight these guys once and for all. I am all for protecting IP, but this is ridiculous.
Apple needs to find some small company that was just sued by these trolls and buy them quickly then they take on the ownership of the sued company and can fight these guys once and for all.
That wouldn't help a thing. Lodsys already said Apple has a license. It's the independant developers who don't.
One consequence of these articles being so poorly written about patent issues is that people are generally operating under a lot of misunderstandings of the situations and patents in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe
I suggest all developers move to New Zealand and tell Lodsys to go hang themselves.
That strategy only works if you only sell your software in New Zealand. IF it's on the US App Store, then US law applies. The NZ laws only apply to NZ territory, the US laws, only to US territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
And if Apple hadn't successfully argued a patent on a wedge and a bouncing screen, I'd feel bad for them. Patent trolling is a double edged sword.
Trivializing what is in actual patents is frankly dishonest. It implies that nothing is ever invented, and that the iPhone is just another blackberry. It's silly. Most patents-- even the ones that haters like to bash-- involve significant innovations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiepaul
If Apple wants to support the developers they should start funding legal defences of the developers. I good team of lawyers should defeat Lodsys, and then a common law precedence will be set. Apple should put it's money where it's heart and mouth is...
This is a good idea, Apple should hire a firm to do nothing but represent the developers. Lodsys sends the developer a letter, developer signs up with Apple's firm, Apple's firm sends reply, Lodsys drops the claim. Would likely solve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelchu
I think some of the Apple patent are ridiculous (like the rubber band stuff) and one of the recent Apple patent filing step right on my toe .... Then the rule relax a few years ago. We seen food price going through the roof, thanks to all the banks stir fry the price sky high.
Same thing should apply to this shell company! If they are just empty holding then they shouldn't be allow to trade such thing. There is no economic benefit here apart from those who have. And they get more.
You think it's ridiculous because you don't understand it. Also, it's not derivatives trading that is driving up food prices, but inflation. Europe is awash with inflation to try and cover the misdeeds of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, etc. Governments love to point to markets where the prices are set, and blame the market, because it's a lot easier than blaming themselves! Alas, most people are so ignorant of economics that they fall for it. Lodsys is not a "Shell company", and if you want to take property rights away from people you don't like, how are you different from any group who has done this in the past: EG: Germans claiming that Jews should not be allowed to own property.
I think you don't understand the nature of "economic benefit".... but let me tell you, inventing new technology does provide economic benefit. Licensing that technology allows more companies to use it, which magnifies the benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran
It seems that most of the posters here are missing the key line of the whole article - that being ".....But the motion was technically applied to suits in which the parties had already settled
Actually you're missing the key point: The judge let Lodsys delay and drop claims or settle claims in order to keep Apple out of it, and then once they had settled them all, Apple was unable to intervene. It's still a denial of Justice because it is legal maneuvering that lets Lodsys get away with not being answered for the fact that Apple has already licensed the technology and lodsys is trying to double-dip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That wouldn't help a thing. Lodsys already said Apple has a license. It's the independant developers who don't.
The independant developers don't need one, because none of us are building our own app stores with in-app purchase. We're all using the Apple one which Lodsys admits Apple has a license for. That's the essential point in this case.
Power corrupts? No, power only shows that corruption. I could never be in a position with power for that reason. Having said that, they do need a new judge.
The solution is for Apple to fully indemnify 3rd party developers against all lawsuits against use of its SDK. That would mean that any lawsuit against a 3rd party developer by Lodsys is a lawsuit against Apple and no judge would be able to prevent Apple from defending itself. The indemnification should have been in the developer license agreement from day 1 and Apple has no excuse for it not being there now.
Is that true? So if you developed an app there in NZ, could I steal it and tell you to go suck my big fat nether regions? Does Samsung have an office there?
There are laws in place to prevent copyright theft but the key is that Lodsys' could EVER get their patents approved simply because they are a software patent, they are obvious, and they are not actively utilising those patents.
NZ already has patent laws that you MUST have a prototype of your invention before you can get a patent. Lodsys has no such prototype and neither does it have code so they could never have gotten a patent in NZ anyway because they failed to meet the requirements.
In NZ you CANNOT get a patent for an idea unless you have that prototype.
Actually you're missing the key point: The judge let Lodsys delay and drop claims or settle claims in order to keep Apple out of it, and then once they had settled them all, Apple was unable to intervene. It's still a denial of Justice because it is legal maneuvering that lets Lodsys get away with not being answered for the fact that Apple has already licensed the technology and lodsys is trying to double-dip.
Ok explain then how they're trying to "double-dip" when APPLE and NOT the individual app developers have licenced the technology.
Ok explain then how they're trying to "double-dip" when APPLE and NOT the individual app developers have licenced the technology.
In simple terms, Developers are using Apple's development system and platform for in-app purchases. All parts of the transaction are handled by Apple and their servers. The developer has no part in the transaction, does not know specifically which customers bought an in-app purchase, never mind the app in the first place. All of this is done by Apple on Apple's severs running Apples development platform. Apple's has paid a license fee for the use of this patent for its development platform/appstore. Lodsys goes after developers knowing they have small pockets and would settle vs. developers having to fight Lodsys to prove that they are covered via Apple's license. This is why Apple stepped in to be heard on this matter, on be half of the developers in the 1st place.
In simple terms, Developers are using Apple's development system and platform for in-app purchases. All parts of the transaction are handled by Apple and their servers. The developer has no part in the transaction, does not know specifically which customers bought an in-app purchase, never mind the app in the first place. All of this is done by Apple on Apple's severs running Apples development platform. Apple's has paid a license fee for the use of this patent for its development platform/appstore. Lodsys goes after developers knowing they have small pockets and would settle vs. developers having to fight Lodsys to prove that they are covered via Apple's license. This is why Apple stepped in to be heard on this matter, on be half of the developers in the 1st place.
There's some big dev's in there too, Martha Stewart and Kapersky being two of them taking it to trial. What surprised me most is some of the fairly well-heeled iOS developers that have agreed to pay Lodsys royalties including Symantec, Estee Lauder and Atari. Lodsys doesn't seem to be fazed by going after the bigger players too.
There's some big dev's in there too, Martha Stewart and Kapersky being two of them taking it to trial. What surprised me most is some of the fairly well-heeled iOS developers that have agreed to pay Lodsys royalties including Symantec, Estee Lauder and Atari. Lodsys doesn't seem to be fazed by going after the bigger players too.
Probably comes down to a cost/benefit issue and that its far cheaper to settle then to fight. I also don't know if any of those companies violate the patent in other ways outside of iOS. For example, Symantec and then the ability to unlock portions from within the software, like backupexec and adding File Open Copy, Workstation Backup, etc.
Also we don't know the whole terms of the settlements. I'm sure those that settle will have to pay regardless of what further action Apple may take on its own against Lodsys. Would love Apple to sue in some way, if possible, but sure a victory would mean the developers who did pay out wouldn't get reimbursed.
Comments
I knew I should have blocked idiots like you. I will rectify that now.
[SIZE=72px]L[/SIZE]
That wouldn't help a thing. Lodsys already said Apple has a license. It's the independant developers who don't.
True but remember their great, great grandpappies roamed the earth with dinosaurs so they are special. :no:
And didn't he do a grand job!
One consequence of these articles being so poorly written about patent issues is that people are generally operating under a lot of misunderstandings of the situations and patents in general.
Quote:
I suggest all developers move to New Zealand and tell Lodsys to go hang themselves.
That strategy only works if you only sell your software in New Zealand. IF it's on the US App Store, then US law applies. The NZ laws only apply to NZ territory, the US laws, only to US territory.
And if Apple hadn't successfully argued a patent on a wedge and a bouncing screen, I'd feel bad for them. Patent trolling is a double edged sword.
Trivializing what is in actual patents is frankly dishonest. It implies that nothing is ever invented, and that the iPhone is just another blackberry. It's silly. Most patents-- even the ones that haters like to bash-- involve significant innovations.
If Apple wants to support the developers they should start funding legal defences of the developers. I good team of lawyers should defeat Lodsys, and then a common law precedence will be set. Apple should put it's money where it's heart and mouth is...
This is a good idea, Apple should hire a firm to do nothing but represent the developers. Lodsys sends the developer a letter, developer signs up with Apple's firm, Apple's firm sends reply, Lodsys drops the claim. Would likely solve it.
I think some of the Apple patent are ridiculous (like the rubber band stuff) and one of the recent Apple patent filing step right on my toe .... Then the rule relax a few years ago. We seen food price going through the roof, thanks to all the banks stir fry the price sky high.
Same thing should apply to this shell company! If they are just empty holding then they shouldn't be allow to trade such thing. There is no economic benefit here apart from those who have. And they get more.
You think it's ridiculous because you don't understand it. Also, it's not derivatives trading that is driving up food prices, but inflation. Europe is awash with inflation to try and cover the misdeeds of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, etc. Governments love to point to markets where the prices are set, and blame the market, because it's a lot easier than blaming themselves! Alas, most people are so ignorant of economics that they fall for it. Lodsys is not a "Shell company", and if you want to take property rights away from people you don't like, how are you different from any group who has done this in the past: EG: Germans claiming that Jews should not be allowed to own property.
I think you don't understand the nature of "economic benefit".... but let me tell you, inventing new technology does provide economic benefit. Licensing that technology allows more companies to use it, which magnifies the benefit.
It seems that most of the posters here are missing the key line of the whole article - that being ".....But the motion was technically applied to suits in which the parties had already settled
Actually you're missing the key point: The judge let Lodsys delay and drop claims or settle claims in order to keep Apple out of it, and then once they had settled them all, Apple was unable to intervene. It's still a denial of Justice because it is legal maneuvering that lets Lodsys get away with not being answered for the fact that Apple has already licensed the technology and lodsys is trying to double-dip.
That wouldn't help a thing. Lodsys already said Apple has a license. It's the independant developers who don't.
The independant developers don't need one, because none of us are building our own app stores with in-app purchase. We're all using the Apple one which Lodsys admits Apple has a license for. That's the essential point in this case.
Power corrupts? No, power only shows that corruption. I could never be in a position with power for that reason. Having said that, they do need a new judge.
Is that true? So if you developed an app there in NZ, could I steal it and tell you to go suck my big fat nether regions? Does Samsung have an office there?
There are laws in place to prevent copyright theft but the key is that Lodsys' could EVER get their patents approved simply because they are a software patent, they are obvious, and they are not actively utilising those patents.
NZ already has patent laws that you MUST have a prototype of your invention before you can get a patent. Lodsys has no such prototype and neither does it have code so they could never have gotten a patent in NZ anyway because they failed to meet the requirements.
In NZ you CANNOT get a patent for an idea unless you have that prototype.
Ok explain then how they're trying to "double-dip" when APPLE and NOT the individual app developers have licenced the technology.
Ok explain then how they're trying to "double-dip" when APPLE and NOT the individual app developers have licenced the technology.
In simple terms, Developers are using Apple's development system and platform for in-app purchases. All parts of the transaction are handled by Apple and their servers. The developer has no part in the transaction, does not know specifically which customers bought an in-app purchase, never mind the app in the first place. All of this is done by Apple on Apple's severs running Apples development platform. Apple's has paid a license fee for the use of this patent for its development platform/appstore. Lodsys goes after developers knowing they have small pockets and would settle vs. developers having to fight Lodsys to prove that they are covered via Apple's license. This is why Apple stepped in to be heard on this matter, on be half of the developers in the 1st place.
There's some big dev's in there too, Martha Stewart and Kapersky being two of them taking it to trial. What surprised me most is some of the fairly well-heeled iOS developers that have agreed to pay Lodsys royalties including Symantec, Estee Lauder and Atari. Lodsys doesn't seem to be fazed by going after the bigger players too.
There's some big dev's in there too, Martha Stewart and Kapersky being two of them taking it to trial. What surprised me most is some of the fairly well-heeled iOS developers that have agreed to pay Lodsys royalties including Symantec, Estee Lauder and Atari. Lodsys doesn't seem to be fazed by going after the bigger players too.
Probably comes down to a cost/benefit issue and that its far cheaper to settle then to fight. I also don't know if any of those companies violate the patent in other ways outside of iOS. For example, Symantec and then the ability to unlock portions from within the software, like backupexec and adding File Open Copy, Workstation Backup, etc.
Also we don't know the whole terms of the settlements. I'm sure those that settle will have to pay regardless of what further action Apple may take on its own against Lodsys. Would love Apple to sue in some way, if possible, but sure a victory would mean the developers who did pay out wouldn't get reimbursed.