EFF Presses Apple To Indemnify Developers

Julie188 writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is calling on Apple to indemnify its developers from Lodsys — a patent troll that's alleging patent infringement on the in-app purchasing used by iOS apps. (That's the technology developed by Apple and forced on many of its developers.) The letters Lodsys has been sending out came to light on May 13th, and apparently developers have been asking Apple for help to no avail."

Comments

mocoNews article explains Apple's dilemma well

[FlorianMueller]

In this context I would like to strongly recommend this new mocoNews (paidContent.org) article entitled "Mobile Patent War On The Little Guy Demands Response From Apple". Tom Krazit explains very well what the business issues are, including that Apple itself sues over patents quite actively, especially against Android.

Re:mocoNews article explains Apple's dilemma well

[betterunixthanunix]

Except that that article addresses nonexistent issues. The EFF is not demanding that Apple indemnify developers against all patent lawsuits, but rather against lawsuits relating to technologies that Apple ships with iOS and which Apple requires developers to use as part of the developer agreement. Additionally, the article claims that doing this would grant legitimacy to the Lodsys patent; but Apple already granted them legitimacy by signing an agreement with Lodsys.

The real lesson here is for developers: don't let someone else dictate to you how you should write your software.

Re:mocoNews article explains Apple's dilemma well

[betterunixthanunix]

Really? Funny, when last I checked, I can write software using whatever programming language I want, and whatever technology is feasible, on my laptop. Nobody tells me what languages I am allowed to use or requires me to use their method of processing purchases. I can even run a different operating system with a completely different design in a virtual machine, if I feel that a different operating system would be better for developing my software.

So where is that dictation you were talking about?

Re:mocoNews article explains Apple's dilemma well

[larry bagina]

Apple didn't license that patent from Lodsys, they (as well as Google, Microsoft and many others) licensed a big basket of patents from Intellectual Ventures. That patent was later spun off to Lodsys.

Re:mocoNews article explains Apple's dilemma well

[TheRaven64]

Not really true for the first two. I can write a Visual Basic application, bundle it with WINE and X11, and ship it for OS X. I doubt anyone would buy it, but nothing is preventing me from doing so. I can write an Objective-C application, link it with GNUstep, and ship it for Windows. I can write applications any Smalltalk for both platforms, and nothing stops me. I can distribute them on paper tape, punch cards, floppy disk, CD, DVD, or downloads from my web page, and the only thing stopping me from doing any of these is that my might have no idea what to do with some of these options.

.NET and the web are a bit more limited, but there are third-party compilers that emit CLIR, so you can use third-party toolkits with third-party languages on .NET without anyone controlling how you distribute them, or imposing requirements on the functionality. The web is more locked down, but I've written an Objective-C to JavaScript compiler, so I can use C code in web apps if I really want to, and nothing is stopping me.

Consoles are similar, but that's just a good reason not to develop for consoles.

Just abolish software patents

[unity100]

and save yourself all this shit.

Failing that...

[betterunixthanunix]

Failing the abolishment of software patents, the lesson here is that the entire iOS development model spelled trouble. You are required to write your software in a particular way, using particular languages and technologies, and you have to distribute it through the App Store and give Apple a cut of your revenue. Developers should have refused such an agreement, and in the future developers should refuse similar agreements (I have no doubt that we will continue to see companies trying to exert such control over developers).

Re:Failing that...

[michelcolman]

Let's see what "ordinary diligence" means according to you, then:

1. You want people to try your software for free, then upgrade to a paying version.

2. You read the Apple developer documentation

3. You find the recommended way to provide this feature, literally documented by Apple, "you should do it this way".

4. You do a full patent review for this and any other silly little feature that your app uses, digging through hundreds of thousands of patents or paying some company tens of thousands of dollars to do this for you, fully aware that you are STILL not sure you aren't violating any unpublished patents.

5. You decide not to release the software since there are way too many applicable patents about the simplest and most obvious little features that really shouldn't be patentable but have been patented nevertheless.

So basically, what you are saying is that everybody should just stop developing software. That's just ordinary diligence.

Tax laws

[CODiNE]

You know when one posts an app to the App store they are first required to fill out tax information including whether or not Apple should withhold for taxes.

Couldn't it be argued that app developers are in effect employees of Apple and already indemnified?

For example if IBM has a license to use a patent, and they call in an outside contractor to work on a project using that patent... you couldn't sue the contractor since he was working for IBM.

Re:Tax laws

[larry bagina]

Apple does not withhold taxes in the US.

I filled out the US tax form. What will be my tax treaty withholding rate?

Apple does not withhold taxes from proceeds paid from sales on the U.S. Store. See the IRS website for more information about types of income subject to U.S. withholding tax and withholding rates under tax treaties.

Will Apple send a U.S. Tax Form 1099 for my sales?

No. Sales on the App Store are sales by you, the developer of copyrighted works, to end users. Therefore, Apple takes the position that payments made to you for these sales are payments for products or goods, which are specifically exempt from reporting on Form 1099 even though the payments may be taxable income to you.

You are responsible for determining your own tax obligations with respect to these payments. If you are uncertain of your tax obligations, we recommend that you consult with a tax professional.

You could argue that third party app developers are actually employees. You can also argue that wearing Nike shoes makes you a Nike employee.

Re:Apple vs EFF?

[Cid Highwind]

"If I had an annoying neighbor that harassed me about the length of my grass, the hours I mowed the lawn, how many cars I had parked in the drive way, etc..."

...and he came over to let you know someone was burgling your garage, you would tell him to fuck right off, because he's annoying?

Why is this patent not yet invalidated?

[kimvette]

This patent needs killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_elements_test

It fails the obviousness test, and it also fails prior art. After all, the button is merely a hyperlink to an app purchase page, and that has been present in shareware and trialware applications for nearly two full decades, and that in itself is a very minor update over older shareware which displayed an ASCII order form which cvould be printed and mailed to the vendor to purchase the full version of the application.

This is not an invention deserving protection as patent law defines it, and this patent surely does not meet the Constitutional guideline:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

because granting a government-enforced monopoly on prior art does not "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts" but hinders such progress.

I'd love to choke the hell out of the next wank who takes an old idea and files a patent for "$foo, on a $bar device" then sues all the little guys using that prior art. Unfortunately killing those who need killing is illegal these days. Progress is great and all, but isn't it nice sometimes to dream of frontier law making a comeback?

This is why China and everyone else is leaping ahead: American companies have long since forgotten the principle of long term investments and real engineering and science R&D but have instead decided to become bottom feeders and litigate rather than innovate, and pat themselves on the back for calling litigation innovation. Disgusting. I often wonder if I should go back to school and become an attorney so I can fight against the insanity of IP law.

Re:So buy a license.

[michelcolman]

Why not?

0.575% for having an update mechanism
0.575% for a button that displays settings
0.575% for using a different color for certain text
etc...

This has to be stopped before it goes to far (which it already has).