Slashdot Mirror
Lodsys Sues 7 iPhone Devs Over Patent Infringement Claims
Dachannien writes "Patently-O and Ars Technica report that Lodsys has filed suit [here's the complaint] in the Eastern District of Texas against seven iPhone developers, asserting that the defendants are infringing two patents. Apple had previously indicated their belief that all iPhone developers are protected by a licensing agreement that Apple had made with the patents' former assignee, Intellectual Ventures. But Lodsys insists that the defendants are nonetheless liable for infringement. Still an open question is whether Apple will go beyond the mailing of strongly worded letters in defending third-party iPhone devs."
They're filing in the Eastern District of Texas, you say? What a shock!
When someone says, "Any fool can see
They are also targeting Android developers. It's not a safe haven.
Err, before pronouncing doom and gloom upon all things Apple, you may want to think ahead a bit... this patent appears sufficiently broad enough so that Android and WP7 developers may well be next.
Personally, while Apple does need to get it in gear and provide as much aid as possible (can 'tortious interference' be a case here if Apple were indeed to sue Lodsys?), Microsoft and Google may *very* well want to get off their butts and at least start making moves to protect their own dev stables.
PS: Even worst-case, this would be a chilling effect only if your iPhone app included an in-app payment system.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Android devs would be on the hook for this as well if it goes through. The patent basically covers any and all in-app purchasing. Lodsys has clearly stated the licensing Apple and Google have paid does not cover 3rd party developers.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Uh wrong on many fronts. apple takes 30% and Android is probably even worse off, since google makes absolutely no claims to defend people due to the "free" nature of Android.
Apple pretty much has to step in at this point. I suspect they will file an injunction of some sort for this suit. The implications will be bad if Lodsys can continue to rape companies.
umad Bro?
Signed,
Steve Jobs
(Sent from my iPhone)
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
Then what precisely did Google and Apple receive when they paid the licensing fee?
Did Apple also obtain a license on that patent? If not, how is that even remotely analogous to the situation at hand?
There's been a lot of debate lately about the failed War on Drugs. Some say that legalizing drugs would take most of the income from murderous cartels, while others believe that the cartels would simple move into new markets. I have a win-win solution. Two of the core competencies of the cartels are: anonymously collecting money, and assassinating people. Let's legalize dope and pay the cartels to whack patent trolls. We free up a lot of prison space, increase tax revenues, cut spending, unfetter the economy, encourage actual innovation and product development, and scare some of the scu^W lawyers into hiding. Huge win all around. We'll have this deficit thing licked in about 3 years.
Software Patent, maybe even patents in general HAVE TO GO! I don't think a single week passes without me hearing about yet another stupid patent suit. They've long since outlived your usefulness.
I hope that Apple will step up, but I'm not sure there is anything in the iOS developers agreement that requires them to do so or guarantees any kind of protection against this kind of thing.. If anyone knows of one I would like to see it.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Lodsys Sues 7 iPhone Devs and 1 Andriod Dev Over Patent Infringement Claims..
Lodsys sues 7 app developers in East Texas, disagrees with Apple; Android also targeted
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Lodsys disputes that Apple's license covers its app developers. So according to Lodsys, the situations are analogous.
I made the mistake of trying to read one of the patents. I have new-found respect for the staff employeed by the USPO. Good heavens, how someone can make a living reading these on a daily basis is beyond me.
What a Lodsys of bullshit. I hope these guys die horrible deaths.
"The '078 is the modern day version of a submarine patent, the claims morphing over more than a decade through a CIP and multiple continuations, most of which were abandoned along the way" link
"This Customer-Based Product Design Module (CB-PD Module) invention is designed to embed a new type of product feature within a range of products and services, helping them evolve into Customer Directed Products (CDP) by means of Development Interactions (DI). The result is a continuous source of Aggregate Customer Desires (ACD) and Defined Customer Desires (DCD) from customers and users while they are using these products and services. This serves vendors as a continuous way to listen to Customers and understand their performance, their needs and their expectations." link
They will do so based on a pure good business decision.
If they stand by and do nothing, it will spook the future developers from creating iOS apps.
Why wouldn't they defend the devs when it could mean issues later on for the profit machine?
I don't know about Google, but seeing as Apple won't disclose the terms of the agreement - maybe they're not allowed to - we can only guess.
And as guesses go, this seems reasonable, albeit short-sighted by on the part of Google/Apple if it were so:
Google/Apple acquired a license to use this technology themselves. I.e. if Google added it to their Google Maps app, that's fine. If Apple added it to some iTunes app, that's fine. It's their apps, they have a license to do so.
But if a third party starts using that technology, well that's not Google/Apple using it then, is it? That technology may be encapsulated in the same thing that Google and Apple's own apps might use (e.g. the API), but it's still the third party actually making use of it.
If third party use of the licensed tech is in fact not covered by the agreement, then what they received is something that's gonna hurt one way or another.
This is a no-brainer. Even if this was Microsoft instead of Apple, the big company that depends on its developers to enrich their products absolutely had to defend its developers whenever and however possible,
To take the view that Apple is too "negative adjective" to do the "right thing" would be absurd. They have their own interests to protect and they most certainly will. If they failed to do that, you can expect a massive drop in quality, enthusiasm and number of developers for Apple's platforms. This, in turn, would spell quiet disappointment in the user community and only the long-term, hard core fans would remain while all the latest and greatest things would be arriving in Android or even Windows.
If Google were less likely to defend than Apple, why wouldn't Lodsys go after Android developers first? If Apple gets involved, they'll probably bury Lodsys with so much legal red tape that it becomes too costly to keep up with the lawsuit, which while sounding evil is basically what Lodsys hopes to do to the app developers.
Also, if Apple initiates a defense, it's likely that Google, Microsoft, and several other companies will also aid in the defense because should Apple lose, they're probably next.
First, this is happening to Android developers as well. Second, although you're on the right track, IMO, defending third-party suits is really not that different from an out-of-court settlement to a lawsuit; it encourages other sleazy IP factories to sue app developers to get a quick payoff at Apple's/Google's expense.
If Apple and Google believe that their contracts with Lodsys grant rights to third-party app developers, then they should sue Lodsys for breach of contract, damage to their reputations (slander), and tortious interference. Between Apple and Google, it shouldn't be hard to thoroughly bury this patent troll company. Anything short of utterly burying them won't be enough of a deterrent to patent troll suits in the future.
Even better, because such suits would not be counter-suits (Lodsys isn't suing Apple or Google, AFAIK), they could be filed in a more friendly district, e.g. Northern California.
Just saying.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I've been strongly offended by software patents ever since I learned over a decade ago about how meager the "innovations" they protect can be. I think most of us will make one or two "patentable innovations" per day before lunch, or at least infringe with some fundamental task like throwing an exception (never realizing we were "innovating" or "infringing" in the process).
So where should we send the money? I want to donate to an org that shares my opinions and is doing something about it. The two I know of are as follows, but would appreciate additional suggestions.
EFF Patent Busting Project: http://w2.eff.org/patent/wp.html
End Software Patents: http://endsoftpatents.org/donate
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
The US patent system is badly broken, at least as far as software patents go. We all know that around here. Usually, the cases that make the tech news involve these Patent Trolls suing large companies (Apple, Google, MS), heck, even SCO v Red Hat. However, here we have an example of "the little guy" getting hurt by a software patent infringement case for an obvious patent.
This case may be a good example to put in front of Congress to show them how completely broken the current system. First, the inventor wasn't harmed by these "in app purchases", it's a patent holding company trolling. Second, the patent is obvious, overly broad and should never have been approved. Third, the patent in question shows the abuses of the current continuation system here in the US. And forth, it's Joe Sixpack getting sued! Nothing works up Congress and the media like an attack on the little guy / corporation.
Until Congress realizes just how goddamned toxic software patents are, there will be no such thing as a safe haven. I don't do a lot of development any more, but I'd be hesitant about getting into the game at all, at least for anything with wide distribution. I'm not even sure you could write hello.c any more without some patent troll trying to nail you with "a program that outputs the phrase 'hello world' through standard output".
Fucking ludicrous. How could the judiciary and the politicians let it get this bad?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Great. Who actually shipped those files? Oh right, no one.
You are both wrong. Yes, Apple takes 30% of REVENUE. Not 30% of profit (as original poster stated). Not a bad deal since they are agent.
"PS: Even worst-case, this would be a chilling effect only if your iPhone app included an in-app payment system."
While I agree with most of your post, I don't agree with this last point. I've been warming up to be an indie dev on mobile devices, and this chills my enthusiasm in a very general way. I don't know when some butt-munch is going to pull a bogus patent out of their pocket and sue me over something that should never even have been granted a patent, let alone cost me legal fees to defend against. It's like a minefield now, and it is really going to be a serious impediment to innovation. We need to collectively tell the government to knock this stuff off, and fast, lest we find ourselves in the technology wastebasket soon.
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
I suspect one concern Apple might have is what effect attempting to defend iOS developers might have. If they stay out of it, patent trolls like Lodsys will obviously continue to go after potentially infringing small fries in the hopes of browbeating them into settling. But if they enter the fray, it might set a precedent which could pull them into other infringement cases that they might feel less comfortable fighting. At some point they're going to have to draw a line and say either that they will pick and choose which infringement cases they will help defend or try to delineate some rules to be able to predict such situations. Either way has its drawbacks.
And of course, they may still opt out of defending. Sure, they wrote a strongly worded letter, but they still have yet to actually put a lawyer in a courtroom or at a negotiating table, on behalf of an unaffiliated iOS developer.
Life is full of risks. The odds of being hit with a patent lawsuit are low, and generally even if you lose, the impact is minimal (not that I agree with Lodsys at all, but even worst case, they are asking for a very small percentage). After all, what good is a parasite that kills its host? Better to keep it alive to milk indefinitely.
Anyway, my point is if you are shying away from doing something because you *might* meet with adversity, you are doing it wrong.
You're right, there is nothing in the agreement that forces Apple to do this. However, you may be surprised to know that corporations always do things that they aren't forced to do. Generally, these would be things that are reasonably seen as "in their own best interest", but they even do things that the people running the company think is "the right thing to do" (there are definitely some industry leaders for whom this phrase is meaningless, but there are undoubtedly more for whom it does come up at least occasionally).
Anyway, in this particular case, Apple has already gone to bat for the developers to a small, but absolutely unrequired extent. If Apple truly believes their license covers third party developers, it's quite likely they will fully step into the legal battle. Maybe the result would be Lodsys loses completely, maybe Apple ends up licensing directly with Lodsys to pay the license directly as part of the 30% cut (the same as they do currently for things like credit card fees).
There are plenty of possibilities, but one thing is certain: it's in Apple's best interest to make sure developers don't have to worry about being gnawed at by third parties for developing for the App Store.
iOS is the larger target. More apps, more users, and disproportionately more revenue in iOS apps. It also makes a bigger splash in the news.
Once again, point out a phone that actually shipped with those files.
Boo to the Eastern District Courts of Texas!
IANAL, however, the very first thing I'd do is move for immediate dismissal with prejudice on the basis that the Plaintiffs have failed to join indispensable parties (i.e. Apple) to the lawsuit. I don't see any way that Apple cannot be dragged into this suit and you just don't want a friend of the court brief from them.
Also, consider asking the judge to consolidate the cases so that you can pool your defenses.
And lastly, file immediate counterclaims for anything you can think of (vexatious litigation, harassment, extortion, barratry, perjury) so that they can't empty your pockets first and then just dismiss the case (w/o prejudice) and run away untouched. As long as you have counterclaims active Lodsys can't unilaterally end the case and leave you holding the bag for your legal expenses.
This case is far too much like someone finding something patented in MS Visual Studio.NET, and then suing application developers for using VS.NET to develop their own applications.
Of course, Apple should have already shown up for this just to prove that they're really not as Evil as many think them to be.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If they don't join the suit the developers should interplead them in.
I hope that Apple will step up, but I'm not sure there is anything in the iOS developers agreement that requires them to do so or guarantees any kind of protection against this kind of thing.. If anyone knows of one I would like to see it.
Apple had better step in, lest they be sued by their own developers for Fraud for requiring the use of an API that Apple either knew, or should have known, required the payment of undisclosed licensing fees to a third party (Lodsys).
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You are both wrong. Yes, Apple takes 30% of REVENUE. Not 30% of profit (as original poster stated). Not a bad deal since they are agent.
Not a bad deal for Apple, that is, since most "agents" take 10%, and managers only take 15%.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Flush the patent system; it's a turd.
I can say [REDACTED] anytime I want!
Sorry, it's not my job to disprove something you yourself can't even prove. Once you show us an actual phone that shipped with those files we can talk. Until then you're just making shit up.
this patent appears sufficiently broad enough so that Android and WP7 developers may well be next.
The question is whether Google and MS will indemnify device manufacturers for the use of their OS.
This hurts Apple, because Apple gets a cut of in-app sales, and because lawsuits of this kind hurt app development for Apple products, which hurts product sales. So purely from self-interest, it seems virtually certain that Apple will sue Lodsys. If Lodsys actually had a good case, Apple would probably be willing to pay the licensing fee, but Apple's view is that they have already paid it. The fact that Lodsys has chosen to sue small developers without the resources to fight in court, rather than Apple, suggests that Lodsys is aware that their case is weak, and are hoping to extort some money from the little guys before Apple shuts them down.
Which begs the question, why don't they all just get together and pound the shit out of these guys.
Personally, I can't get my brain around the fact something so obvious is patentable in the first place. But beyond that, seems like just about every big player would be waiting in line to kick these guys to the curb if they thought it was the least bit defensible.
You mean 10% and 15% plus whatever expenses they incur. And, their clients cover all the other costs of their business ventures. Bet when you add all those things up that you come up with a 30% or more of total revenue going out the door.
Considering their developers are being threatened too, I find that highly unlikely.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Apple claims the opposite; that their license does cover their developers. So to them, the situations are completely different.
That's the problem with software patents. It doesn't matter what 'alternatives' they use. If they do basically the same thing, Lodsys can still sue for infringement.
Apple users pay for Apple software + hardware, without the software, Apple would be nothing better than your basic prole software developers, i.e. MS. The pretty box is simply because Apple knows how to package their goods as opposed to the Dell's, HP's, etc. package theirs. The reference to Minix is supposed to engender a moron's view of Linux, I presume. And the sexually active consumers, well, whatever turns you on.
Congress will do nothing. Patents are one of the main forms of passive income for rich people including lawyers, judges and politicians.
Patent reform will not happen unless we get massive public outcry alike to the civil rights movement.
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
I don't read legalese, I don't understand what these two patents are about. One patent filed in 2006 seems to be about a way for a customer to specify what they want and get a "custom" designed "something" (The title of the application is customer-based-product design module) and talks about the user sending preferences to the vendor and receiving "preprogrammed interactions". In 2006??? Didn't we have a way for the user to order predefined "programmed interactions" well before 2006? Over a network? The other was filed in 2003 and APPEARS to be a way to gather a survey from users of different devices (again something done prior to 2003) I fail to see how either of these have to do with in app purchases. And I'm pretty sure both of these have prior art going back to the 80's at least. I don't think that the patent concept is wrong. But when you give out a patent to anyone who applies for anything...
Looks like a good opportunity for Apple to pretend it gives a $#! about it's users/developers. Any platform is only as good as the apps it has available. That's how Palm survived so long with crappy hardware and an even crappier OS. There was always an app (or thirteen) that did what you needed done. If Apple doesn't stand up for the one thing that makes an iP[ad|od|hone] worth having, then it might prove that the one and only iDevice-killer was Apple itself.
Could just be so easy as Lodsys going after the small developers to force Apple to pay up. Going straight for Apple will probably drag out for ages in court, while going after the developers will have an immediate chilling effect and forces Apple to at least consider buying out the patent without much of a bargaining position.
this patent appears sufficiently broad enough so that Android and WP7 developers may well be next.
The question is whether Google and MS will indemnify device manufacturers for the use of their OS.
Actually, the question is have Google and MS indemnified developers. I beleive the answer is yes.
That being said, this is an ideal example as to why software patents are utterly useless and contrary to a healthy software market.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Or until an anonymous appstore is created, using anonymous currency. If things continue on their way something like that may surface.
It's like they're begging for name mutilation by the angry masses.
So we all know why patents are issued - so that instead of keeping knowledge to themselves, companies publish the what, the why and the how of it. This enables someone else to come along and implement this from scratch in the future. That's the whole point of them - you get a limited monopoly in return for making your inventions public.
So why is it that technically literate people can't actually clearly understand what is meant in these patents ? Why are they allowed to be so obfuscated ?
Actually, the question is have Google and MS indemnified developers. I beleive the answer is yes.
I'm not so sure about that. While there haven't been lawsuits (yet), Lodsys has already claimed that both companies have purchased their patent license (thus implying that they think it's valid - or at least valid enough that it's cheaper to license than to argue in court), but said license only covers those companies, and not their customers. I don't think there has been any official reaction to that... we shall see.
Of course, it may just as well result in Google and MS joining forces with Apple on this particular suit.