I have no experience with these in app purchases, but my understanding is all payments go through Apple. (they have my credit card) So I buy an app from apple, and make an in app purchase from apple. Apple licenses the technology to do this, so why would their supplier (developer) also pay. The developers are selling to apple, not me. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see any case here.
Google would do the same thing for their devs, right? Right?!? (crickets chirping...)
I really think Android Devs are in a sperate boat. Many of them may not be using Google Marketplace APIs for in-app purchases which would put them outside any decided coverage by google's license of Lodsys' patents. The pitfalls of open I guess.
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.
It may be Lodsys' position that the android market is not mature enough and that Devs may decide to just pull their app from the marketplace and focus on strictly iPhone apps (especially if apple prevails) rather than pay royalties for their android apps.
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.
So why not sue Apple directly for violating license terms? I think Lodsys underestimated Apple's willingness to get involved, or at least hoped to extort some money from small developers before Apple could get a ruling.
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?
If this is the only one, perhaps not. But from Apple's standpoint, developers are being aske to pay again for something Apple has already paid for, and if developers drop in-app purchasing to avoid a license fee, it will cost Apple money.
Also, what if this just the tip of the iceberg? What if developers pay, and then get hit with demands for payment for other features covered by the same package of licenses? Developers could get nickeled and dimed to death.
Lodsys has to have anticipated that Apple will get involved in this manner. I think that they probably have a pretty tight case, and I bet that Apple knows it too. Apple has no choice to get involved.
Remember SCO? Patent holders play a numbers game, and tend to assume that opponents will prefer to settle than to fight.
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 haven't read the patent, have you?
Well I've read it, or at least the claims section, which is the relevant part. And no, it is not well drafted. In fact, it is a POS patent. These kinds of patents are often the best to litigate because no one has any idea what it means, which means the patentee can say it means whatever they want to.
Apple almost certainly did not analyze this patent when they took a license. Only the patent owner could concoct the idea that this patent was meant to cover in-app purchases.
It is almost certain that these guys want a quick settlement and they aren't interested in an lengthy lawsuit with a bunch of developers. They want Apple and Google to pony up a few tens of millions and they will be on their way.
So why not sue Apple directly for violating license terms? I think Lodsys underestimated Apple's willingness to get involved, or at least hoped to extort some money from small developers before Apple could get a ruling.
I suspect the plan was to collect from Apple all along. Why would Lodsys want to have to sue and then collect ongoing royalties from tens of thousands of individual developers, many of which are marginally solvent. That's crazy. No, Lodsys is after Apple and Google, but they can't sue them directly because they have a license.
Apple doesn't want to litigate this. What if they lose the lawsuit and can't do in-app purchases? Talk to a patent lawyer and they will tell you "anything can happen in litigation." Remember when RIM thought they shouldn't have to pay a $5M license for push email. After litigation they ended up paying $500,000,000. (That's half a billion in case you lost track of all the zeros). Apple isn't stupid like RIM. They will license for what will be a pittance for Apple and this will all go away.
For Lodsys, the ruffled feathers of the developers is a necessary part of the plan.
Comments
Google would do the same thing for their devs, right? Right?!? (crickets chirping...)
I really think Android Devs are in a sperate boat. Many of them may not be using Google Marketplace APIs for in-app purchases which would put them outside any decided coverage by google's license of Lodsys' patents. The pitfalls of open I guess.
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.
It may be Lodsys' position that the android market is not mature enough and that Devs may decide to just pull their app from the marketplace and focus on strictly iPhone apps (especially if apple prevails) rather than pay royalties for their android apps.
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.
So why not sue Apple directly for violating license terms? I think Lodsys underestimated Apple's willingness to get involved, or at least hoped to extort some money from small developers before Apple could get a ruling.
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?
If this is the only one, perhaps not. But from Apple's standpoint, developers are being aske to pay again for something Apple has already paid for, and if developers drop in-app purchasing to avoid a license fee, it will cost Apple money.
Also, what if this just the tip of the iceberg? What if developers pay, and then get hit with demands for payment for other features covered by the same package of licenses? Developers could get nickeled and dimed to death.
Lodsys has to have anticipated that Apple will get involved in this manner. I think that they probably have a pretty tight case, and I bet that Apple knows it too. Apple has no choice to get involved.
Remember SCO? Patent holders play a numbers game, and tend to assume that opponents will prefer to settle than to fight.
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 haven't read the patent, have you?
Well I've read it, or at least the claims section, which is the relevant part. And no, it is not well drafted. In fact, it is a POS patent. These kinds of patents are often the best to litigate because no one has any idea what it means, which means the patentee can say it means whatever they want to.
Apple almost certainly did not analyze this patent when they took a license. Only the patent owner could concoct the idea that this patent was meant to cover in-app purchases.
It is almost certain that these guys want a quick settlement and they aren't interested in an lengthy lawsuit with a bunch of developers. They want Apple and Google to pony up a few tens of millions and they will be on their way.
So why not sue Apple directly for violating license terms? I think Lodsys underestimated Apple's willingness to get involved, or at least hoped to extort some money from small developers before Apple could get a ruling.
I suspect the plan was to collect from Apple all along. Why would Lodsys want to have to sue and then collect ongoing royalties from tens of thousands of individual developers, many of which are marginally solvent. That's crazy. No, Lodsys is after Apple and Google, but they can't sue them directly because they have a license.
Apple doesn't want to litigate this. What if they lose the lawsuit and can't do in-app purchases? Talk to a patent lawyer and they will tell you "anything can happen in litigation." Remember when RIM thought they shouldn't have to pay a $5M license for push email. After litigation they ended up paying $500,000,000. (That's half a billion in case you lost track of all the zeros). Apple isn't stupid like RIM. They will license for what will be a pittance for Apple and this will all go away.
For Lodsys, the ruffled feathers of the developers is a necessary part of the plan.