The sooner legislation is brought in to eradicate these trolls the better. The only people gaining from these activities are the lawyers while everyone else is being screwed!
I hear you and agree, but realize that as the Tea Party lobbies against "intrusive" government, this is the type of "intrusion" they are doing all they can to prevent/shut down. The American public needs to decide once and for all which they want; an end to companies abusing them or smaller government. They're mutually exclusive.
I hear you and agree, but realize that as the Tea Party lobbies against "intrusive" government, this is the type of "intrusion" they are doing all they can to prevent/shut down. The American public needs to decide once and for all which they want; an end to companies abusing them or smaller government. They're mutually exclusive.
Well, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the Tea Party wants government to be no larger than it can afford to be. Which isn't the case right now. Regardless, I certainly haven't heard _any_ candidates calling for changes in IP laws.
Anyway, the silence from Apple on this issue is deafening.
I have a hotel and buy a certain sliding glass door, and it turns out that the company that makes the door DID license the sliding door technology, but Lodsys decides they really only meant that the door company can run the door to test it at the factory and that every hotel that uses the sliding doors now is infringing and should be sued.
OK, that's a bit closer. So... does it work that way in real life or not? Would someone sue every customer that bought a car if they felt that the manufacturer didn't license something correctly, or would they sue the manufacturer? I mean, I can be using that car as a taxi and making money... so am _I_ getting sued because the far meter that's installed violates a patent? I'm guessing no, but I'm not an attorney. Or troll.
Why do people always think analogies are useful, and that they can come up with a better one?
Considering developers get authoritative information about Apple, and issues that impact them as developers, directly through the Apple Developer Program, this is not something that should be addressed publicly.
The information regarding news and events similar to this given through the developers program is very limited, and if it was announced there, it would be sufficient for current developers. However, this also effects more then current developers, but also people who are teetering on the idea of developing for iOS and the developers program's image, something that is very valuable to Apple.
The information regarding news and events similar to this given through the developers program is very limited, and if it was announced there, it would be sufficient for current developers. However, this also effects more then current developers, but also people who are teetering on the idea of developing for iOS and the developers program's image, something that is very valuable to Apple.
Agreed. There's also the fact that this is being addressed publicly in the press, whether Apple wants it to be or not.
Apple's silence only means that one side and not the other is getting their point of view presented to the public.
On the plus side, hopefully this craters Apple's asinine plot to stipulate 3rd party vendors with an outside purchasing method must also use in-app purchasing at an equal or lesser cost to the end user. So now, not only is Apple dictating product pricing through non-Apple channels, but they are now apparently forcing their developers to carve out even more of their profit to license this tech.
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.
How long does it take to write and post a letter that says "F OFF"?
I'm sure that as a business you could bill them for that therefore the more people send these trolls bills for legal council they will stop this ridiculous suing.
I would start the bill at an hourly rate of $1000 and add expenses. Then if these trolls refuse to pay up I would send the credit agents to enforce a payment from them.
Once these idiots see they're getting screwed they may just stop screwing everyone else.
The information regarding news and events similar to this given through the developers program is very limited, and if it was announced there, it would be sufficient for current developers. However, this also effects more then current developers, but also people who are teetering on the idea of developing for iOS and the developers program's image, something that is very valuable to Apple.
Apple is not a foolish company. They are well versed in legal matters and will deal with this in their own way. Until they've taken the time to sort it out, any statements just bring *more* attention to Lodsys and lend the issue more credence than it currently merits. Apple is not in the business of providing free advertising for patent trolls.
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.
There is a mechanism for Apple to communicate directly with the developers of currently available Apps in the App Store. They don't have to use the media.
Interesting that no one has mentioned... MAGAZINES. Lodsys is testing the waters by squeezing the balls of small developers. But they've seen magazines now with in-app subscriptions and in-app purchases, on top of Smurf Village in-app kind of stuff.
If small developers cave the next target is magazines... Or maybe those companies are too big for Lodsys to mess with. Maybe Lodsys is using the small developers to set a precedent then go for the bigger fish.
First, those who scream "patent troll" should be silenced. Now we know it is a valid patent (Apple agreed to that, as well as Google and MS). So not all patents are nonsense.
The real question is the language of the licensing agreement.
I think this company's got no chance .... its developers using Apples developed and produced solution (API's) for IAP ... dev's cannot use their own home-brewed solution on iOS AppStore .... therefore surely dev's are basically using the code Apple has licensed
Seems like another troll will troll case
Apple can't really license the tech and turn around and license it to whomever they want if the terms of the license don't provide for it.
Thats like saying you purchased a license for software, thus you can turn around and make copies of it since you have a valid license. Your license doesn't provide for that, so you cant do it.
I fully support this suit only because it shows the ridiculousness of software patents as a whole. They aren't new "tech" in the way inventions are. They are just leveraging existing tech in a new application. Though it is technically patentable, I don't think it adds any value to society and we shouldn't be protecting these things.
Development costs of new software aren't nearly on the same scale as say developing a new drug, so theres really no real value to be had from giving a developer a 10 year monopoly on a specific feature that they came up with.
Yeah, it's always Apple's fault. Apple has to fix everything. They are soooooo evil.
No, apple needs to fix this because it could open the floodgate on their developers. These developers are using the SAME process that Apple already licensed from this company. They're using the provided IAP process that Apple provides. If Apple doesn't get involved here, it could open up developers to other pointless lawsuits and make the App store (or any app store on any device) increasingly expensive to develop for, which will push out small time developers.
So yes, Apple NEEDS to step in here. I'd argue that Apple, Google, RIM, Microsoft, and anyone else with a mobile app store needs to step in here and shoot this crap down.
If an app store licenses a patent and puts it into a developer API for their products, that license needs to cover all legal uses of that API on their platform. This troll company trying to "double dip" is wrong. Just like when the RIAA wanted Verizon/ATT to pay "performance" royalties on top of the royalties they already paid when a customer downloaded a ringtone (legally)
Comments
The sooner legislation is brought in to eradicate these trolls the better. The only people gaining from these activities are the lawyers while everyone else is being screwed!
I hear you and agree, but realize that as the Tea Party lobbies against "intrusive" government, this is the type of "intrusion" they are doing all they can to prevent/shut down. The American public needs to decide once and for all which they want; an end to companies abusing them or smaller government. They're mutually exclusive.
I hear you and agree, but realize that as the Tea Party lobbies against "intrusive" government, this is the type of "intrusion" they are doing all they can to prevent/shut down. The American public needs to decide once and for all which they want; an end to companies abusing them or smaller government. They're mutually exclusive.
Well, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the Tea Party wants government to be no larger than it can afford to be. Which isn't the case right now. Regardless, I certainly haven't heard _any_ candidates calling for changes in IP laws.
Anyway, the silence from Apple on this issue is deafening.
Land? Let's fix the analogy...
I have a hotel and buy a certain sliding glass door, and it turns out that the company that makes the door DID license the sliding door technology, but Lodsys decides they really only meant that the door company can run the door to test it at the factory and that every hotel that uses the sliding doors now is infringing and should be sued.
OK, that's a bit closer. So... does it work that way in real life or not? Would someone sue every customer that bought a car if they felt that the manufacturer didn't license something correctly, or would they sue the manufacturer? I mean, I can be using that car as a taxi and making money... so am _I_ getting sued because the far meter that's installed violates a patent? I'm guessing no, but I'm not an attorney. Or troll.
Why do people always think analogies are useful, and that they can come up with a better one?
Considering developers get authoritative information about Apple, and issues that impact them as developers, directly through the Apple Developer Program, this is not something that should be addressed publicly.
The information regarding news and events similar to this given through the developers program is very limited, and if it was announced there, it would be sufficient for current developers. However, this also effects more then current developers, but also people who are teetering on the idea of developing for iOS and the developers program's image, something that is very valuable to Apple.
The information regarding news and events similar to this given through the developers program is very limited, and if it was announced there, it would be sufficient for current developers. However, this also effects more then current developers, but also people who are teetering on the idea of developing for iOS and the developers program's image, something that is very valuable to Apple.
Agreed. There's also the fact that this is being addressed publicly in the press, whether Apple wants it to be or not.
Apple's silence only means that one side and not the other is getting their point of view presented to the public.
Agreed.
By paying the licensing fee Apple effectively validated the patent claims
This is assuming that Apple has actually licensed anything (and that their use of In App purchases uses this patent).
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.
How long does it take to write and post a letter that says "F OFF"?
I'm sure that as a business you could bill them for that therefore the more people send these trolls bills for legal council they will stop this ridiculous suing.
I would start the bill at an hourly rate of $1000 and add expenses. Then if these trolls refuse to pay up I would send the credit agents to enforce a payment from them.
Once these idiots see they're getting screwed they may just stop screwing everyone else.
The information regarding news and events similar to this given through the developers program is very limited, and if it was announced there, it would be sufficient for current developers. However, this also effects more then current developers, but also people who are teetering on the idea of developing for iOS and the developers program's image, something that is very valuable to Apple.
Apple is not a foolish company. They are well versed in legal matters and will deal with this in their own way. Until they've taken the time to sort it out, any statements just bring *more* attention to Lodsys and lend the issue more credence than it currently merits. Apple is not in the business of providing free advertising for patent trolls.
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.
There is a mechanism for Apple to communicate directly with the developers of currently available Apps in the App Store. They don't have to use the media.
Thompson
If small developers cave the next target is magazines... Or maybe those companies are too big for Lodsys to mess with. Maybe Lodsys is using the small developers to set a precedent then go for the bigger fish.
The real question is the language of the licensing agreement.
I think this company's got no chance .... its developers using Apples developed and produced solution (API's) for IAP ... dev's cannot use their own home-brewed solution on iOS AppStore .... therefore surely dev's are basically using the code Apple has licensed
Seems like another troll will troll case
Apple can't really license the tech and turn around and license it to whomever they want if the terms of the license don't provide for it.
Thats like saying you purchased a license for software, thus you can turn around and make copies of it since you have a valid license. Your license doesn't provide for that, so you cant do it.
I fully support this suit only because it shows the ridiculousness of software patents as a whole. They aren't new "tech" in the way inventions are. They are just leveraging existing tech in a new application. Though it is technically patentable, I don't think it adds any value to society and we shouldn't be protecting these things.
Development costs of new software aren't nearly on the same scale as say developing a new drug, so theres really no real value to be had from giving a developer a 10 year monopoly on a specific feature that they came up with.
Yeah, it's always Apple's fault. Apple has to fix everything. They are soooooo evil.
No, apple needs to fix this because it could open the floodgate on their developers. These developers are using the SAME process that Apple already licensed from this company. They're using the provided IAP process that Apple provides. If Apple doesn't get involved here, it could open up developers to other pointless lawsuits and make the App store (or any app store on any device) increasingly expensive to develop for, which will push out small time developers.
So yes, Apple NEEDS to step in here. I'd argue that Apple, Google, RIM, Microsoft, and anyone else with a mobile app store needs to step in here and shoot this crap down.
If an app store licenses a patent and puts it into a developer API for their products, that license needs to cover all legal uses of that API on their platform. This troll company trying to "double dip" is wrong. Just like when the RIAA wanted Verizon/ATT to pay "performance" royalties on top of the royalties they already paid when a customer downloaded a ringtone (legally)