I'm proud that Apple licensed this in the first place to provide a safe development platform for us and second that when that was threatened, Apple is standing up for us. Enough said. (i.e. someone said Lodsys must have thought in advance, well I'm sure Apple did too. That's why they licensed in the first place.)
...so if you write FIRST for Apple's platform, and THEN you write an app for Android, you aren't REALLY an Android developer, just an Android wannabe developer? Just curious if you were dismissing this developer ( and the hundreds of other developers who jumped on the Apple ecosystem first before turning around and bringing their apps to Android) because they weren't a "pure" Android/Android only dev.
No not at all. I was noting that Lodsys hasn't targeted Android developers as such. . . yet. The Android app mentioned in this case actually came from an iOS developer. As for whether the lawsuits against Android developer's are all written up and just waiting for a trigger, I don't know anymore than anyone else.
I assume they sued people completely unable to defend themselves.
My point is that this is guaranteed to get Apple involved, and the only reason that I can see that Lodsys would want this is as leverage towards renegotiating a more lucrative agreement with Apple. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.
It's obvious but it's just half of the story. Another half might be that Lodsys would bet Apple, being big and greedy as it is, might not get involved, or too busy to get involved, if we just sue some small devs who's not affect to Apple's pocket much).
I'm proud that Apple licensed this in the first place to provide a safe development platform for us and second that when that was threatened, Apple is standing up for us.
What choice do they have? I'm serious... I don't think they have a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawl
Enough said. (i.e. someone said Lodsys must have thought in advance, well I'm sure Apple did too. That's why they licensed in the first place.)
It's obvious but it's just half of the story. Another half might be that Lodsys would bet Apple, being big and greedy as it is, might not get involved, or too busy to get involved, if we just sue some small devs who's not affect to Apple's pocket much).
Sure. But negotiating, administering, and or suing that many licensing agreements is a large problem. Particularly for small-time accounts that may only bring in $500 bucks over their lifetime. I guess they could just target the big guys, but that seems likely to bring Apple in, which we would be assuming they were trying to avoid.
I'm not sure I follow you here. I just thought in your opinion Lodsys is very confident and want to drag Apple to court for a big pay-off?
Right.
I was responding to the hypothesis that they would just go after devs in court, hoping not to get Apple involved. I was saying this probably doesn't pay in the long run unless you target some of the more successful devs, but if successful devs are sued this is likely to defeat the purpose of keeping Apple on the sidelines.
I was responding to the hypothesis that they would just go after devs in court, hoping not to get Apple involved. I was saying this probably doesn't pay in the long run unless you target some of the more successful devs, but if successful devs are sued this is likely to defeat the purpose of keeping Apple on the sidelines.
I'm not sure I follow you here. I just thought in your opinion Lodsys is very confident and want to only drag Apple to court for a big pay-off?
My theory is that Lodsys was hoping to get a quick judgement from the court against the smaller guys who couldn't defend themselves well, then sue the guys with deep pockets after they had a prior judgement to give weight to their claim.
"The app developers whom Lodsys sued appear to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement (which makes sense), so they can't speak out on their current relationship with Apple," Mueller wrote in his blog on Friday. "While I don't have any confirmation from anyone that Apple has agreed to cover those defendants' costs and potential risks, it's hard to imagine how else this could work.
I'm not a lawyer of any kind but I can clearly see the method in Apple's madness.
They will get themselves entered into the suit and then immediately file for a summary judgement and dismissal on the grounds that they are paying for the licensing on behalf of all their developers and have been since day one. They will also likely ask that Lodsys be made to pay any court costs incurred by the other defendants since the suits should have never been filed in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Google would do the same thing for their devs, right? Right?!? (crickets chirping...)
Not at all. They set the rules differently. Mainly in the sense that they make a lot fewer and let developers pretty much have total control and total responsibility.
Apple wants folks to use the IAP system. They are ramming it down developers throats left and right. First with their "if you want to let folks pay outside, you must let them pay inside also" stuff. Soon they will probably force games etc to dump the whole "free" and "paid" separate versions and make one single version with all upgrades inside the app. Valid or invalid patent aside they did license the tech and according to them the deal includes the developers and that is why they are stepping up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes
What are you talking about? The original comment pointed out that the title of the patent comes across as exceedingly broad. I was merely pointing out that Apple licensed it rather than litigating it, which leads one to believe that the actual patent itself is at least reasonably well done.
I wouldn't count on that. At the time that the patent was approved the landscape could have been very different. Which may be why a vague idea patent was approved. But times have changed and case law is changing the rules of play. And under those new rules, this patent might not be so 'valid' anymore. Allowing it to continue stifle the very invention process that patents are supposed to be promoting and protecting.
Also I recall reading some where that the deal was actually with another company that Lodsys bought out and it was an R&D investment by Apple and a handful of other companies in exchange for use of all existing and developed patents by said company for the investors and their partners for the length of all patents for a preset cost. And Lodsys had to agree to honor this when they bought the patents. I can't find the link now but I do remember thinking that it sounded like something Apple would do (especially the Apple of 10 or so years ago when apparently it happened). And if this was the case then this patent might have not actually been in existence at the time that Apple signed the deal. So they wouldn't have needed to review anything. The terms were set and they had already agreed to paid (and perhaps already did)
Quote:
Originally Posted by David808
My theory is that Lodsys was hoping to get a quick judgement from the court against the smaller guys who couldn't defend themselves well, then sue the guys with deep pockets after they had a prior judgement to give weight to their claim.
Actually I think it was a slightly different deal. Cause the bigger guys with the deep pockets are Apple and Lodsys admits they have a proper license. The issue is if it covers the developers. Apple says yes, Lodsys says not no but hell no now pay up.
I think that they went after the little guys stupidly thinking that the letter would scare them into agreeing to pay to avoid a law suit. They didn't count on the power of Twitter etc for word to get to Apple. And now they were hoping to again scare the little guys into settling fast and with little outrage. But of course that power of Twitter etc got the word out and Apple is standing by their statement. They have to now that the letter is out there (and I think they were a source of that leak if only for the positive PR). They likely knew this the moment they sent the letter which is why they took the week to review the paperwork and be sure they knew what they were saying. If the deal hadn't clearly included the 'partners' they would have likely stepped up admitted that they had intended for it to and they are the ones that should be paying and worked out a new deal, etc
You're pointing out that I am just speculating on a sight that specializes in speculation about Apple? I'm sure everyone thanks you for your vigilance.
Also you seem to have overlooked the fact that my original post had nothing to do with Lodsys, but was merely pointing out that you can't tell much about a patent from its title, and that we have circumstantial evidence that it was a legitimate patent, given that Apple licensed it (even as part of a batch).
The part about Lodsys' motivation and Apple's predicament are obviously complete speculation on my part.
And I'm pointing out that you don't know how to reason logically, and that your "circumstantial evidence" doesn't exist as such.
By the way, I noticed you had quote marks around something that wasn't an actual quote from Vic Gundotra in your sig. Did you intentionally replace "act" with "copy"? Kinda changes the whole meaning.
I just hope that this isn't a situation similar to the one where they licensed the use of overlapping windows and other System features to Microsoft many years ago for the purpose of Microsoft writing programs for Apple, but where the wording was not specific enough so that MS stole those features for Windows, and when Apple took them to court, they lost.
If that's the case with Lodsys's portion, then Apple could be in the right, but if Apple is wrong here, because of sloppy legal work, Lodsys could hold the cards.
We won't know this for a while.
Sloppy in what sense? That it's ambiguous? If that is the case, why would Lodsys have any advantage? Ambiguous means it could equally be argued that Apple's interpretation is correct.
Apple hasn't mandated in-app purchasing. It is an option. The developer could have somebody buy outside the app as well. In app purchasing was just offered as a way of convenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
AFAIK, the only Android app included in the suit was written by an Apple developer who just happened to also have an Android version. And since Google hasn't mandated in-app purchasing as Apple has, Google's position may be different. Dunno. Suppose we'll all wait a while and find out.
I assume they sued people completely unable to defend themselves.
My point is that this is guaranteed to get Apple involved, and the only reason that I can see that Lodsys would want this is as leverage towards renegotiating a more lucrative agreement with Apple. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.
I'm not a lawyer of any kind but I can clearly see the method in Apple's madness.
They will get themselves entered into the suit and then immediately file for a summary judgement and dismissal on the grounds that they are paying for the licensing on behalf of all their developers and have been since day one. They will also likely ask that Lodsys be made to pay any court costs incurred by the other defendants since the suits should have never been filed in the first place.
Not at all. They set the rules differently. Mainly in the sense that they make a lot fewer and let developers pretty much have total control and total responsibility.
Apple wants folks to use the IAP system. They are ramming it down developers throats left and right. First with their "if you want to let folks pay outside, you must let them pay inside also" stuff. Soon they will probably force games etc to dump the whole "free" and "paid" separate versions and make one single version with all upgrades inside the app. Valid or invalid patent aside they did license the tech and according to them the deal includes the developers and that is why they are stepping up.
I wouldn't count on that. At the time that the patent was approved the landscape could have been very different. Which may be why a vague idea patent was approved. But times have changed and case law is changing the rules of play. And under those new rules, this patent might not be so 'valid' anymore. Allowing it to continue stifle the very invention process that patents are supposed to be promoting and protecting.
Also I recall reading some where that the deal was actually with another company that Lodsys bought out and it was an R&D investment by Apple and a handful of other companies in exchange for use of all existing and developed patents by said company for the investors and their partners for the length of all patents for a preset cost. And Lodsys had to agree to honor this when they bought the patents. I can't find the link now but I do remember thinking that it sounded like something Apple would do (especially the Apple of 10 or so years ago when apparently it happened). And if this was the case then this patent might have not actually been in existence at the time that Apple signed the deal. So they wouldn't have needed to review anything. The terms were set and they had already agreed to paid (and perhaps already did)
Actually I think it was a slightly different deal. Cause the bigger guys with the deep pockets are Apple and Lodsys admits they have a proper license. The issue is if it covers the developers. Apple says yes, Lodsys says not no but hell no now pay up.
I think that they went after the little guys stupidly thinking that the letter would scare them into agreeing to pay to avoid a law suit. They didn't count on the power of Twitter etc for word to get to Apple. And now they were hoping to again scare the little guys into settling fast and with little outrage. But of course that power of Twitter etc got the word out and Apple is standing by their statement. They have to now that the letter is out there (and I think they were a source of that leak if only for the positive PR). They likely knew this the moment they sent the letter which is why they took the week to review the paperwork and be sure they knew what they were saying. If the deal hadn't clearly included the 'partners' they would have likely stepped up admitted that they had intended for it to and they are the ones that should be paying and worked out a new deal, etc
Alright, so this whole thing ticked me off enough to actually register and stop lurking and make a post on this topic.
So I skimmed over the patent, and found out that this patent basically covers the "Rate This App" before deleting feature that applications use to send rankings back to Apple's app store. Take a look at the pdf at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7222078.pdf and you'll see in the first figure a fax machine displaying a message: "How much did you like or dislike the method you just used to program the fax machine's user settings."
This patent has nothing to do with in-app purchases, only "perceptions" or the user's ranking of the app.
Simply asking a user to rate the app and then sending them to the app store to rate the app WOULD NOT be covered, as the patent covers only the method within the "commodity" (ie, app) to collect the user's perception (ie, ranking) of the commodity (app) and transmit that data back to a so-called "central location" (ie, the app store).
Boom. Apple licensed this patent, and because Apple provides this rank before deleting feature to developers in the SDK, this suit should be thrown out.
I just don't see $5K on $1M as being unreasonable. If I'm an App developer, I'm willing to pay $5K for every $1M just to make this go away. Sure, the patent is vague bull$hit, but they do own the patent and Apple felt it strong enough to license, so why put your company at risk? What am I missing?
I just can't see Lodsys winning this thing. What can Apple do with a license that requiers the interaction of a developer. It's a in-app license, please!
Comments
...so if you write FIRST for Apple's platform, and THEN you write an app for Android, you aren't REALLY an Android developer, just an Android wannabe developer? Just curious if you were dismissing this developer ( and the hundreds of other developers who jumped on the Apple ecosystem first before turning around and bringing their apps to Android) because they weren't a "pure" Android/Android only dev.
No not at all. I was noting that Lodsys hasn't targeted Android developers as such. . . yet. The Android app mentioned in this case actually came from an iOS developer. As for whether the lawsuits against Android developer's are all written up and just waiting for a trigger, I don't know anymore than anyone else.
I assume they sued people completely unable to defend themselves.
My point is that this is guaranteed to get Apple involved, and the only reason that I can see that Lodsys would want this is as leverage towards renegotiating a more lucrative agreement with Apple. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.
It's obvious but it's just half of the story. Another half might be that Lodsys would bet Apple, being big and greedy as it is, might not get involved, or too busy to get involved, if we just sue some small devs who's not affect to Apple's pocket much).
I'm proud that Apple licensed this in the first place to provide a safe development platform for us and second that when that was threatened, Apple is standing up for us.
What choice do they have? I'm serious... I don't think they have a choice.
Enough said. (i.e. someone said Lodsys must have thought in advance, well I'm sure Apple did too. That's why they licensed in the first place.)
We can always hope.
It's obvious but it's just half of the story. Another half might be that Lodsys would bet Apple, being big and greedy as it is, might not get involved, or too busy to get involved, if we just sue some small devs who's not affect to Apple's pocket much).
Sure. But negotiating, administering, and or suing that many licensing agreements is a large problem. Particularly for small-time accounts that may only bring in $500 bucks over their lifetime. I guess they could just target the big guys, but that seems likely to bring Apple in, which we would be assuming they were trying to avoid.
I guess they could just target the big guys, but that seems likely to bring Apple in, which we would be assuming they were trying to avoid.
I'm not sure I follow you here. I just thought in your opinion Lodsys is very confident and want to only drag Apple to court for a big pay-off?
I'm not sure I follow you here. I just thought in your opinion Lodsys is very confident and want to drag Apple to court for a big pay-off?
Right.
I was responding to the hypothesis that they would just go after devs in court, hoping not to get Apple involved. I was saying this probably doesn't pay in the long run unless you target some of the more successful devs, but if successful devs are sued this is likely to defeat the purpose of keeping Apple on the sidelines.
Right.
I was responding to the hypothesis that they would just go after devs in court, hoping not to get Apple involved. I was saying this probably doesn't pay in the long run unless you target some of the more successful devs, but if successful devs are sued this is likely to defeat the purpose of keeping Apple on the sidelines.
Ah... I see.
I'm not sure I follow you here. I just thought in your opinion Lodsys is very confident and want to only drag Apple to court for a big pay-off?
My theory is that Lodsys was hoping to get a quick judgement from the court against the smaller guys who couldn't defend themselves well, then sue the guys with deep pockets after they had a prior judgement to give weight to their claim.
"The app developers whom Lodsys sued appear to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement (which makes sense), so they can't speak out on their current relationship with Apple," Mueller wrote in his blog on Friday. "While I don't have any confirmation from anyone that Apple has agreed to cover those defendants' costs and potential risks, it's hard to imagine how else this could work.
I'm not a lawyer of any kind but I can clearly see the method in Apple's madness.
They will get themselves entered into the suit and then immediately file for a summary judgement and dismissal on the grounds that they are paying for the licensing on behalf of all their developers and have been since day one. They will also likely ask that Lodsys be made to pay any court costs incurred by the other defendants since the suits should have never been filed in the first place.
Google would do the same thing for their devs, right? Right?!? (crickets chirping...)
Not at all. They set the rules differently. Mainly in the sense that they make a lot fewer and let developers pretty much have total control and total responsibility.
Apple wants folks to use the IAP system. They are ramming it down developers throats left and right. First with their "if you want to let folks pay outside, you must let them pay inside also" stuff. Soon they will probably force games etc to dump the whole "free" and "paid" separate versions and make one single version with all upgrades inside the app. Valid or invalid patent aside they did license the tech and according to them the deal includes the developers and that is why they are stepping up.
What are you talking about? The original comment pointed out that the title of the patent comes across as exceedingly broad. I was merely pointing out that Apple licensed it rather than litigating it, which leads one to believe that the actual patent itself is at least reasonably well done.
I wouldn't count on that. At the time that the patent was approved the landscape could have been very different. Which may be why a vague idea patent was approved. But times have changed and case law is changing the rules of play. And under those new rules, this patent might not be so 'valid' anymore. Allowing it to continue stifle the very invention process that patents are supposed to be promoting and protecting.
Also I recall reading some where that the deal was actually with another company that Lodsys bought out and it was an R&D investment by Apple and a handful of other companies in exchange for use of all existing and developed patents by said company for the investors and their partners for the length of all patents for a preset cost. And Lodsys had to agree to honor this when they bought the patents. I can't find the link now but I do remember thinking that it sounded like something Apple would do (especially the Apple of 10 or so years ago when apparently it happened). And if this was the case then this patent might have not actually been in existence at the time that Apple signed the deal. So they wouldn't have needed to review anything. The terms were set and they had already agreed to paid (and perhaps already did)
My theory is that Lodsys was hoping to get a quick judgement from the court against the smaller guys who couldn't defend themselves well, then sue the guys with deep pockets after they had a prior judgement to give weight to their claim.
Actually I think it was a slightly different deal. Cause the bigger guys with the deep pockets are Apple and Lodsys admits they have a proper license. The issue is if it covers the developers. Apple says yes, Lodsys says not no but hell no now pay up.
I think that they went after the little guys stupidly thinking that the letter would scare them into agreeing to pay to avoid a law suit. They didn't count on the power of Twitter etc for word to get to Apple. And now they were hoping to again scare the little guys into settling fast and with little outrage. But of course that power of Twitter etc got the word out and Apple is standing by their statement. They have to now that the letter is out there (and I think they were a source of that leak if only for the positive PR). They likely knew this the moment they sent the letter which is why they took the week to review the paperwork and be sure they knew what they were saying. If the deal hadn't clearly included the 'partners' they would have likely stepped up admitted that they had intended for it to and they are the ones that should be paying and worked out a new deal, etc
You're pointing out that I am just speculating on a sight that specializes in speculation about Apple? I'm sure everyone thanks you for your vigilance.
Also you seem to have overlooked the fact that my original post had nothing to do with Lodsys, but was merely pointing out that you can't tell much about a patent from its title, and that we have circumstantial evidence that it was a legitimate patent, given that Apple licensed it (even as part of a batch).
The part about Lodsys' motivation and Apple's predicament are obviously complete speculation on my part.
And I'm pointing out that you don't know how to reason logically, and that your "circumstantial evidence" doesn't exist as such.
Ah... I see.
By the way, I noticed you had quote marks around something that wasn't an actual quote from Vic Gundotra in your sig. Did you intentionally replace "act" with "copy"? Kinda changes the whole meaning.
And I'm pointing out that you don't know how to reason logically, and that your "circumstantial evidence" doesn't exist as such.
Ah, I see.
[CP]->[Edit Ignore List]
I just hope that this isn't a situation similar to the one where they licensed the use of overlapping windows and other System features to Microsoft many years ago for the purpose of Microsoft writing programs for Apple, but where the wording was not specific enough so that MS stole those features for Windows, and when Apple took them to court, they lost.
If that's the case with Lodsys's portion, then Apple could be in the right, but if Apple is wrong here, because of sloppy legal work, Lodsys could hold the cards.
We won't know this for a while.
Sloppy in what sense? That it's ambiguous? If that is the case, why would Lodsys have any advantage? Ambiguous means it could equally be argued that Apple's interpretation is correct.
AFAIK, the only Android app included in the suit was written by an Apple developer who just happened to also have an Android version. And since Google hasn't mandated in-app purchasing as Apple has, Google's position may be different. Dunno. Suppose we'll all wait a while and find out.
Ah, I see.
[CP]->[Edit Ignore List]
Yes, the best way to remain ignorant and uninformed is to simply ignore the facts and make up whatever "truth" feels good to you.
I assume they sued people completely unable to defend themselves.
My point is that this is guaranteed to get Apple involved, and the only reason that I can see that Lodsys would want this is as leverage towards renegotiating a more lucrative agreement with Apple. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.
Blanket Patent agreements don't get renegotiated.
I'm not a lawyer of any kind but I can clearly see the method in Apple's madness.
They will get themselves entered into the suit and then immediately file for a summary judgement and dismissal on the grounds that they are paying for the licensing on behalf of all their developers and have been since day one. They will also likely ask that Lodsys be made to pay any court costs incurred by the other defendants since the suits should have never been filed in the first place.
Not at all. They set the rules differently. Mainly in the sense that they make a lot fewer and let developers pretty much have total control and total responsibility.
Apple wants folks to use the IAP system. They are ramming it down developers throats left and right. First with their "if you want to let folks pay outside, you must let them pay inside also" stuff. Soon they will probably force games etc to dump the whole "free" and "paid" separate versions and make one single version with all upgrades inside the app. Valid or invalid patent aside they did license the tech and according to them the deal includes the developers and that is why they are stepping up.
I wouldn't count on that. At the time that the patent was approved the landscape could have been very different. Which may be why a vague idea patent was approved. But times have changed and case law is changing the rules of play. And under those new rules, this patent might not be so 'valid' anymore. Allowing it to continue stifle the very invention process that patents are supposed to be promoting and protecting.
Also I recall reading some where that the deal was actually with another company that Lodsys bought out and it was an R&D investment by Apple and a handful of other companies in exchange for use of all existing and developed patents by said company for the investors and their partners for the length of all patents for a preset cost. And Lodsys had to agree to honor this when they bought the patents. I can't find the link now but I do remember thinking that it sounded like something Apple would do (especially the Apple of 10 or so years ago when apparently it happened). And if this was the case then this patent might have not actually been in existence at the time that Apple signed the deal. So they wouldn't have needed to review anything. The terms were set and they had already agreed to paid (and perhaps already did)
Actually I think it was a slightly different deal. Cause the bigger guys with the deep pockets are Apple and Lodsys admits they have a proper license. The issue is if it covers the developers. Apple says yes, Lodsys says not no but hell no now pay up.
I think that they went after the little guys stupidly thinking that the letter would scare them into agreeing to pay to avoid a law suit. They didn't count on the power of Twitter etc for word to get to Apple. And now they were hoping to again scare the little guys into settling fast and with little outrage. But of course that power of Twitter etc got the word out and Apple is standing by their statement. They have to now that the letter is out there (and I think they were a source of that leak if only for the positive PR). They likely knew this the moment they sent the letter which is why they took the week to review the paperwork and be sure they knew what they were saying. If the deal hadn't clearly included the 'partners' they would have likely stepped up admitted that they had intended for it to and they are the ones that should be paying and worked out a new deal, etc
Alright, so this whole thing ticked me off enough to actually register and stop lurking and make a post on this topic.
So I skimmed over the patent, and found out that this patent basically covers the "Rate This App" before deleting feature that applications use to send rankings back to Apple's app store. Take a look at the pdf at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7222078.pdf and you'll see in the first figure a fax machine displaying a message: "How much did you like or dislike the method you just used to program the fax machine's user settings."
This patent has nothing to do with in-app purchases, only "perceptions" or the user's ranking of the app.
Simply asking a user to rate the app and then sending them to the app store to rate the app WOULD NOT be covered, as the patent covers only the method within the "commodity" (ie, app) to collect the user's perception (ie, ranking) of the commodity (app) and transmit that data back to a so-called "central location" (ie, the app store).
Boom. Apple licensed this patent, and because Apple provides this rank before deleting feature to developers in the SDK, this suit should be thrown out.