3 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, so no one should take this as legal advice. After a quick read of the iOS developer agreement, it doesn't appear that Apple has any obligatio

by amosson 15y ago

I'm not a lawyer, so no one should take this as legal advice. After a quick read of the iOS developer agreement, it doesn't appear that Apple has any obligations in this matter, rather it appears that the application developers are required to pay for the defense of Apple due to their "(vi) [Your] use of the Apple Software or services, Your Application, Licensed Application Information, metadata, Registered Devices, or Your development and distribution of any Application." (See Section 11 - Indemnification). Depending on what Apple decides to do this could get interesting. Apple should immediately amend their agreement to indemnify all developers against patent lawsuits stemming the required use of their APIs. Otherwise, some developer will cave and pay these guys off which will start a cascade of additional lawsuits. Additionally, no one should think this is an iOS only problem. If the patent applies to iOS in app purchases it will apply to Android as well.

cube13 15y ago
The problem is that the API doesn't violate the patent. Spyro7 linked the patent(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2544889 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2544889), and it appears that having a "rate me" or IAP button violates the patent. The usage of the API violates the patent, not the API itself. This is actually worse than just iOS and Android. It applies to basically the entire gaming industry, because any game with a "Buy DLC" button infringes on the patent. Hell, this could apply to any program that has a "Rate this here" button, as well.
- amosson 15y ago
  Understood. The point I was trying to make, maybe not clearly enough, was that Apple, wants/requires developers to use their in-app API if they want to sell anything. Since they are forcing developer to potentially violate a patent, they should indemnify developers. It is also in their interest to do so.
  - cube13 15y ago
    Disclosure: I am a low level C API developer, so I have a lot of self interest in this. The problem that I have with a blanket indemnification like this is how large the coverage could be. Sure, you should cover cases that involve your business model, like the app store or IAP, but what about cases that are just usage of functionality? Hypothetically, if the patent was over the shape of the buttons used(which would be more of a copyright or trademark issue, admittedly), and that changing the shape would make it not infringe, should the API owner, cover that? Or if the API is used as an input or output for a patented algorithm, like an audio or video codec, should that be covered? I honestly don't believe that the API owner should cover either of those cases, because they are too broad, and make them responsible for a LOT more cases than before. In this case, however, I do agree that Apple, Google, and a LOT of other companies(Valve, Sony, and MS because of gaming DLC) have a vested interest in squashing the trolls as quickly as possible, because this patent covers a good portion of their business models for their markets.
    - amosson 15y ago
      If they were to go broad'ish with and indemnification, it would probably have the effect of scaring off the true trolls since they would know at some point, they'd need to face someone with deep-pockets. The strategy here, is to go after the smallest pocketed person you can find, get a settlement, and then use that to go after the next. Get enough settlements and you can you establish precedent.
r00fus 15y ago
As useless an idea as IAP is to me (I've never used it, it seems dangerous with a kid around, etc), I think it would behoove Apple to take a stand here, because a lawsuit could essentially be a death-sentence for many apps and puts a chilling effect on app development in general.
bradleyland 15y ago
IANAL, but let me share with you how this works from the perspective of someone who is well versed in being kicked in the nuts by people with more expensive lawyers. The person with the advantageous position gets to demand indemnification. Everyone else gets to pound sand. The chances of app developers receiving indemnification from Apple is nil for some reasons that are lawyer-ish, and some that are basic math. Consider that there are thousands of app developers, and only one Apple. If the agreement granted indemnification to every app developer, Apple would be on the hook for a whole lot of attorneys in cases just like this. No lawyer is going to put that in to a contract, because it violates the client's interests. In other words, "you're on your own buddy."

by amosson 15y ago

cube13 15y ago

The problem is that the API doesn't violate the patent. Spyro7 linked the patent(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2544889 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2544889), and it appears that having a "rate me" or IAP button violates the patent. The usage of the API violates the patent, not the API itself. This is actually worse than just iOS and Android. It applies to basically the entire gaming industry, because any game with a "Buy DLC" button infringes on the patent. Hell, this could apply to any program that has a "Rate this here" button, as well.

amosson 15y ago
Understood. The point I was trying to make, maybe not clearly enough, was that Apple, wants/requires developers to use their in-app API if they want to sell anything. Since they are forcing developer to potentially violate a patent, they should indemnify developers. It is also in their interest to do so.
- cube13 15y ago
  Disclosure: I am a low level C API developer, so I have a lot of self interest in this. The problem that I have with a blanket indemnification like this is how large the coverage could be. Sure, you should cover cases that involve your business model, like the app store or IAP, but what about cases that are just usage of functionality? Hypothetically, if the patent was over the shape of the buttons used(which would be more of a copyright or trademark issue, admittedly), and that changing the shape would make it not infringe, should the API owner, cover that? Or if the API is used as an input or output for a patented algorithm, like an audio or video codec, should that be covered? I honestly don't believe that the API owner should cover either of those cases, because they are too broad, and make them responsible for a LOT more cases than before. In this case, however, I do agree that Apple, Google, and a LOT of other companies(Valve, Sony, and MS because of gaming DLC) have a vested interest in squashing the trolls as quickly as possible, because this patent covers a good portion of their business models for their markets.
  - amosson 15y ago
    If they were to go broad'ish with and indemnification, it would probably have the effect of scaring off the true trolls since they would know at some point, they'd need to face someone with deep-pockets. The strategy here, is to go after the smallest pocketed person you can find, get a settlement, and then use that to go after the next. Get enough settlements and you can you establish precedent.

r00fus 15y ago

As useless an idea as IAP is to me (I've never used it, it seems dangerous with a kid around, etc), I think it would behoove Apple to take a stand here, because a lawsuit could essentially be a death-sentence for many apps and puts a chilling effect on app development in general.

bradleyland 15y ago

IANAL, but let me share with you how this works from the perspective of someone who is well versed in being kicked in the nuts by people with more expensive lawyers. The person with the advantageous position gets to demand indemnification. Everyone else gets to pound sand. The chances of app developers receiving indemnification from Apple is nil for some reasons that are lawyer-ish, and some that are basic math. Consider that there are thousands of app developers, and only one Apple. If the agreement granted indemnification to every app developer, Apple would be on the hook for a whole lot of attorneys in cases just like this. No lawyer is going to put that in to a contract, because it violates the client's interests. In other words, "you're on your own buddy."