Slashdot Mirror
Lodsys Responds To In-App Purchasing Patent Controversy
An anonymous reader writes "Last week, a heretofore unknown company named Lodsys sent FedEx packages to a number of independent iOS developers informing them that their use of in-app purchasing infringed on valid patents they owned. Now Lodsys has publicly responded to a number of issues/questions levied at them over the past few days."
"So why do you think you should profit from something so painfully obvious? This is a natural extension of shareware so why is this unique?"
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
...that these guys go screw themselves?
Apple, Google and Microsoft, all 3 have licences from them?
they ask for 0.575% for US revenue. I dont know the numbers, but 0.575% fo Apple,Google and Microsoft US revenue combined should be a HUGE number..
How can we make profits without actually doing any work or producing anything of value?
How can we make revenue off of other people's work and businesses?
I know! Threaten people and make stuff up!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
From TFA: "This ideation, as expressed in the patent, enabled a building block for others to build on and create more value."
I'm pretty sure that the use of non-words like "ideation" is inversely proportional to the originality of that idea.
I wish we could deal with patent trolls the same way the judge recently dealt with Righthaven by stating that having no rights other than the right to enforce the IP is on its face hollow because no damage can come to the rights holder. If the idea of copyrights and patents is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," then I think it's obvious that allowing firms to just buy the right to sue over a piece of IP is against the intention in the constitution and hence invalidates their suit.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
If Anonymous want to do something truly useful they'd wipe this scum off the face of the Internet.
Here is the most revealing section of the "answer" given"
http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-is-dan-abelows-involvement-is-intellectual-ventures-behind-lodsys-or-controlling-lodsys-in-some-way.html
For those that don't want to read the section, allow me to sum up: Some guy named Dan invested a crapload of time patenting things he had no intention of making. those patents were resold a couple times until they landed in the hands of a Patent Troll company who set up multiple smaller companies with the expressed intention of Patent trolling.
Yep. It's every bit as obnoxious and evil as you thought it was.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Assuming this patent is valid(playing devil's advocate here), what would it mean to Apple's demands that apps allow for in-app purchases(that Apple takes a cut from)? Apple would essentially be requiring developers to use and therefore have to license this idea, and then pay the Apple royalties on top of that, would it not? Seems like this would be bad for Apple, as it would drive more people away from iOS and the app store, which would mean fewer fees and royalties for Apple.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This one time i was at a baseball game and i bought a beer without leaving my seat. Did Lodsys get their cut off that?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Read the patent. Teletext, Prestel, Viewdata and whatever it was called in France are all prior art.
The problem is that fraud has been rampant on Wall Street for so long that I could probably host all of the honest people that work there in a small house.
Oh, I get it now! Maybe it's this lady!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P46qYCIt954
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If apple supplies an API for/with in-app purchasing, then I shouldn't be infringing for using it. Apple should. Then again, there were shopping apps before, and they were not infringing on in-app purchasing patents, but existed before them. Doesn't that void the patent?
With all of the different developers contacted with basically a threat/cease-and-desist/pay up notice, perhaps they will form a consortium to appeal and revoke what appears to be a completely unconscionable software patent.
This undue attention will be their undoing.
So far not mentioned in the blog: "How does an 'Upgrade' button infringe any of the claims of the quoted patent for recording user feedback locally?"
See, for instance: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2152750&cid=36122268
What exactly did Lodsys "invent" here ? And how can it not be considered trivial/obvious ?
Can I go ahead and patent In-Bar Purchasing (IBP) ? "A process where one person, robot, or legal entity, acquires food, beverage or short-lived sexual gratification in exchange for cash, credit, or barter."
I'll gladly take 0.575% of all bar revenue worldwide. Suuuuure.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
...patent shizzle: We need a death squad killforce to squash these patent trolls from existence. Their being here is a burdon to all, and therefore, their life grant should be revoked. ASAP.
The first item in their FAQ says that they are going after developers because they make the money from using the technology. Actually I think they'd find that Apple, taking 30% of everyone's in-app purchases would be earning many times the amount that any individual developer would earn. So by their own logic they should be going after Apple. Also Apple has delivered the tools for devs to 'infringe' their patents.... Bunch of trolls...
Their responses are all - naturally - based on the assumption that their claims are valid. However, they have yet to explain how their patent -- which specifically encompasses a method of providing feedback to content creators from content consumers... has relevance to an in-app upgrade purchase. Nothing of the sort is referenced in the patent. The suggestion that such a purchase is a form of feedback is specious at best: the customer is offering no suggestions for improving or changing the product (the common example specified in the patent itself), but is rather paying continue using or unlock already-existing functionality.
So they're getting death threats over this. I'm not surprised. The big problem there is that only one of those threats ever has to be real. The thing about East Texas is that while it may be hospitable to patent trolls, it is also hospitable to gun ownership. Not a great mix.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Excuse me while I go patent the hyperlink as a method of selecting product or content for purchase or rental.
I am not greedy; I seek only 0.575% of US revenue.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I could probably fit all the dishonest people from wall-street in a small house as well. Though I might need to reduce them to compressed ash first.
Claim 24: 24. The system of claim 1 wherein the two-way local interactions comprise a transaction for sale of a product or a service contract for the commodity. I'm guessing that would be the claim in question. As for which apps apple needs to pay for? I'd guess the app store one, and the itunes one at a minimum.
If you weren't playing the game, I'm not certain that the patent would apply.
And if you were playing the game, was the beer instrumental to you winning the game? If not, I don't think the patent would apply.
Not that I think the patent is necessarily valid, mind you, I just don't think the analogy is apt. Paying to view a game and then purchasing a beverage while viewing the game is not the same thing as entering a game and then paying for materials, etcetera to help win the game.
Maybe everyone here should send an email to Lodsys describing an app that they've thought about developing and ask for a license agreement? As the design for the app evolves, keep sending revisions to them to see if it requires a new agreement?
That should at least slow down their business model.
Hmm...that gives me an idea - maybe someone should patent the patent troll business model?
This is the same "Inventor" that got a patent on tooltips:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?company=webvention&edition=techdirt
And roll-over images:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/10/14/2030245/Webvention-Demanding-80k-For-Rollover-Images
Both perfect examples of the abuse and mis-use of the USPTO.
It's the first rule of dealing with spammers, and should be the first rule of dealing with patent trolls.
You're fighting someone with no ethics and no memory. Assume they'll lie to you. Assume they'll lie to everyone else. And assume the lies will contradict each other, and even (sometimes) a lie will contradict itself.
Don't give them anything: valuable information, money, or the time of day.
Their answer to the first and most important question, "why targeting little guys and not Apple?" is "it is only fair to get paid by the party that is accountable for the entire solution." When you are trying to forcibly take money from small fry who have no knowledge of your so called patent and you have to use the words "it is only fair," you know you don't have a case.
And then they proceed with that ridiculous hotel analogy: "hotel owner is responsible for the service, not the owner of the land that the hotel is leasing, or the manufacturer of hammers used to build the hotel." The analogy is flawed because the manner of the service is instituted by the Apple.
If the patent is worthwhile, the engineer will have no trouble securing funding for a new company dedicated to producing the solar cell.
As someone who has been involved with fund raising for startup businesses I feel comfortable saying that is nonsense. Just because you have a good idea does not even remotely ensure that securing funding will be easy or ensure a return on investment. Even if you can raise the money that doesn't ensure you'll get the money on favorable terms.
why can they be bought and sold like securities?
Because, like securities, patents are by definition an asset. Assets can be bought and sold. Doesn't matter what kind of asset either. You can sell receivables, inventory, property, securities, debt, and any other kind of asset you care to mention. There is absolutely no reason to make a distinction for patents.
They should be non-transferable unless the case is one of a certain company buying another.
Nonsense. Patents are an asset. If they are more valuable to someone else than to me I should have every right to sell or license that asset to another party. Don't conflate how an asset is used with whether it should be allowed to be sold. There is nothing wrong with buying a knife to use for cooking. Use it for stabbing someone else and now we have a problem. Same with patents - what matters is how they are used, not how they are acquired. A patent troll who's sole "product" is litigation is to my mind like the person who buys a knife with the intent to stab someone rather than to cook.
You say that like its a bad thing.
If you have amused people in the past with your application, and you respond to the user such that the amusement is; enhanced, or n-1 improved, or generally MORE amusing, you are in violation of my LOLSYS patent.
n-2) If you are adding to the acronym LOL, such that it is LOL-Cat, or LOL-System, or other derivative of this work, such that the LOL in question is either "more" confusing, or less confusing, you are considered to be using a derivative work of the LOL architecture.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
i am impressed by her speed -- but what exactly is the REAL-WORLD application for such fast stamping?
Either you automate the process, or someone needs to READ the piece of paper.
>> Maybe USPTO could be replaced by a machine -- but there is no need to hire a PERSON merely to stamp a piece of paper.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
See the issue here that should be stated is TRANSFER OF A PATENT VERSUS LICENSING OF A PATENT.
Basically it should be impossible to transfer a patent or allow another to collect the licensing fees (IE a corp you work for writing into your employment contract that they recieve all or x percent of the patent licensing proceeds for any patent you are the published inventor on.), and doing so should make the patent null and void.
Additionally licensing a patent should be A-OK, this is what allows an inventor to design and produce prototype inventions without having to worry about it being stolen/exploited for profit by someone with the legal power to bankrupt them.
Additionally I think handling patent cases between single person inventors and large companies in a 'small claims court' setting might be a better option, limiting the company to a single representative and thus hopefully putting the inventor on more competitive grounds.
What do the rest of you think?
So Apple, Google and Microsoft have already payed Licensing fees for integrating the Technology into their OS and System APIs?
Whenever this technology is integrated into a Third-Party App, they access it using System APIs.
If App developers use System APIs to playback h.264, MP3s and other Licensed Technolgies, they aren't expected to pay licensing to MPEG-LA or Fraunhaufer Institute. The Licensing has already been payed by the OS Vendor.
How is this any different?
They did answer that question, rather obliquely.
Starting in 1988, Dan Abelow invented, put in significant amounts of his time, and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in patent filing, prosecution lawyer fees, and maintenance fees to the US Patent Office to create the patent portfolio.
Actually, they did. It's on the second page:
Q: (opinion, in several blogs): The patents are broad and should not have been granted 05/15/2011 The patents were issued and recognized as invention from a patent application filed in August of 1992. It is all too easy to look back with 18.5 years of hindsight, and knowledge of how the market has evolved, and say “of course this is how everyone is going to do it” or “the patents are too broad.”
It's not that "gosh, we spent so much money at the patent office so we deserve a patent," but rather, if you want to claim the thing is obvious, you have to supply references from pre-August 1992 to show it was obvious. You can't just wave your hands and say "duh," since the legal standard requires more than just the conclusion.
If this isn't the obvious way to do it then what is?
This is indeed a troubling trend -- the fact that MacroSolve and Lodsys are filing patent enforcement actions against one-person app development shops, rather than against the "deep-pockets" targets like Google and Apple, does not bode well for the future of innovation. Such lawsuits will inevitably discourage some small-scale developers from continuing their work, which will in turn deprive consumers of technological advances. What a shame.