8 ms·

Lodsys explains in-app patent warning letters sent to iOS developers

99 points by DeusExMachina 15y ago

surfingdino 15y ago
If we accept this kind of shit, there will soon be hundreds of leeches asking for their share of our money. And then even the most wealthy developers will feel the pain. I say squash those bugs early. If Apple, Google, and MS pay, they are stupid.
- bigiain 15y ago
  Reminds me of this post from yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2551436 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2551436 What was written as fiction, is actually happening in real life. We've made defending against frivolous patent claims expensive enough that someone with a broad enough patent can nickel and dime a large enough group of people hoping many of them will say "0.575%? Fuck it, I'll just pay..." It will be interesting to see how this pans out in the long run...
robinduckett 15y ago
If I make a music sharing site where people can upload their own music and sell their music, and my company which made the site licensed the MP3 codec or another proprietary codec to release the music files for sale, does this mean the licenser of the codec could then individually sue each person selling their music on my site, because they don't individually own a license for the codec, even though they are just using the tools provided for by them by a license holder? This just doesn't make sense.
- ZeSmith 15y ago
  Patent trolling is a highly effective business model, but it has to make no sense in order to work.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    Patent trolling...it has to make no sense in order to work. No, it just has to make no sense in order to make tech news. Otherwise, it would be something like: "NEWSFLASH! Perfectly sensible licensing deal!"
    - mattdeboard 15y ago
      If it's perfectly reasonable, then I'd say it's not trolling.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        So then, "Patent trolling, it has to be unreasonable to exist." This shows differences in generational understanding of words. "Trolling" in this case predates the widespread use with regards to Internet behavior and actually refers to fishing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing) Just as trolling attempts to mimic a real school of fish, patent trolling attempts to mimic the legitimate licensing of productive patents. The reasonableness of the "bait" is entirely up to those doing the trolling. (And is largely subjective, which perhaps highlights a fundamental weakness of the current patent system.)
- flipbrad 15y ago
  That would probably depend on the terms of the IP licence. Does it cover downstream users, or not? If you're a platform, you get (hopefully, if you were properly advised) what you paid for. What you then represent to your downstream users to bring them to your platform should be honest, though. Prospective platform users presumably want to known whether this is a good platform for their business, i.e. IP-sandboxed, reliable, safe, with large footfall. It presumably wasn't in fact IP-sandboxed. By that I mean that the upstream licensors have been selfish in their negotiations, or the platform doesn't indemnify you against claims, or even at least offer to coordinate a circling of developer wagons. What's interesting to know if whether they've nevertheless held it out as an IP-safe platform; if not, caveat emptor probably applies, and developers are now presumably kicking themselves for not making IP safety a part of their due diligence before contracting with apple, etc, for a platform on which to build their business. Realities aside, it's tremendously regrettable that indy software developers and inventors are supposed to have to worry about third party IP rights, particularly over their usage of major commercial platforms for their business.
dododo 15y ago
here's the actual explanation from lodsys: http://www.lodsys.com/blog.html http://www.lodsys.com/blog.html they mention apple, google, microsoft have some sort of license from them, i wonder if the relatively low cost of a license is the reason: http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-charging.html http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-charging... i.e., cheaper to just pay them off than fight it.
- ansy 15y ago
  Although the blog states Apple, Google and Microsoft have a deal for themselves and Lodsys is not specifically seeking a broader deal to cover third parties as well, it seems rather obvious Apple et al would be much better off collecting this 0.575% on behalf of Lodsys rather than degrade the usability of In App Purchase by requiring developers to secure a license separately. At least that's the Apple thing to do if Apple really sees this patent as legitimate. Of course, that's probably what Apple thought it was getting and probably feels it got tricked by Lodsys if that was the case.
- brandall10 15y ago
  I wonder if they disclosed to Apple et al. that they would also be pursuing licensing from their developer base.
lmarinho 15y ago
Craig Grannell wrote an answer to the Lodsys blog: http://reverttosaved.com/2011/05/16/lodsys-responds-to-trolling-accusations-regarding-ios-in-app-payments/ http://reverttosaved.com/2011/05/16/lodsys-responds-to-troll...
mikecane 15y ago
Well, this is one hell of a Gotcha! for everyone who is using in-app purchasing. Wasn't it the responsibility of Apple, Google, MS, to inform developers of this? Hm, I wonder if HP has a license for webOS. And does this apply to desktop in-app purchases? What about in-app web app purchases? Does Facebook and its devs need a license?
- barrettcolin 15y ago
  Reportedly, it isn't restricted to just in-app purchase: http://twitter.com/#!/jamesthomson/status/70095343605391360 http://twitter.com/#!/jamesthomson/status/70095343605391360
  - mikecane 15y ago
    Hmmm... could that have been a notice error in their glee to target everyone? If it applies, this is a damn bigger issue than everybody yet understands!
schrototo 15y ago
"But for an app developer to take a year or two to write an application and to see money from the app, is good fortune built on top of the contributions of the entire shared ecosystem, including independent inventor’s patent outputs such as Abelow’s." [1] Oh give me a fucking break. Yeah, us developers would be utterly lost without the exciting "inventions" of Abelow and Lodsys LLC. [1] http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-unethical-you-are-extortionistsetc.html http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-...
- JoeCortopassi 15y ago
  The bigger issue, is that the current 'in app purchase' system is mandated by Apple to be the only way purchases can be made for your app. Apple licensed this technology, mandated it on it's developers, then failed to mention that it required a separate fee to be paid to a third party for use. How is this not getting more notice? Lodsys is evil, no doubt, but what Apple did right there is shady as heck.
  - schrototo 15y ago
    I can't imagine that Apple would willfully put its entire app ecosystem at risk like that.
  - bigiain 15y ago
    Makes their recent destruction of competing iOS ebook apps even more insidious... "We'll require you to sell everything via in app purchases at 30% commission to us, even though we know the industry standard gross margin comes out to exactly that 30% we're going to take off you. Oh, and we're not going to tell you about the patent we've got a licence for which means you're going to owe somebody else another 0.575% as well. Good luck making a living on that." Thanks Apple... You're making the decision about whether to invest my time in iOS app development for my clients a lot easier... HTML5 mobile webapps FTW...
reitzensteinm 15y ago
I've been kicking an idea around in my head for a while, although I've got no idea if it's viable or not. But it seems like it could put a stop to this kind of a thing. Basically, it would be a non profit organization that accepts donations of patents by hackers, and uses them to sue only companies that themselves have used patents offensively. Blatant patent trolls could also become targeted for life at future businesses - although I'm not sure of the legality of this - to serve as a severe disincentive for this kind of behavior. Although it might take a while and quite a bit of money to get started, it seems like it would fund itself indefinitely once going, and enough people seem to be pissed off enough about the current situation that a serious amount of brainpower could be donated to the project. Does anyone see any showstoppers for something like this, or is it just a matter of not having someone benevolent and gutsy enough to pull it off?
- schrototo 15y ago
  The problem being: patent trolls like Lodsys LLC do not actually create anything. There's nothing to countersue over.
  - reitzensteinm 15y ago
    That's the point of the marked for life bit, if it were legal - and it seems like it probably isn't, IANAL etc. But if it were, anyone setting up a patent trolling company would be targeted at future companies as well, which is a very concrete disincentive. Ex patent trolls would basically run the very real risk of being unemployable, and have trouble starting legitimate ventures as well.
    - khafra 15y ago
      If we drop the concerns over legality, what about starting rumors that there's a secret offshore blind trust, contributed to by both deep-pocketed victims of patent trolls and open-source developers. A trust which exists to take the other side of anonymous bets regarding the death or disappearance of patent trolls.
  - 15y ago
xedarius 15y ago
Given the following situation. I have an app with in-app purchase. I don't live in the US and your patent is meaningless where I live, and yet I sell my app in your country. Wonder how the legal wrangling works with that one. As a lot of people will be in this situation.
sajid 15y ago
Apple needs to step in and sort this out, it's in their best interests to do so. If Lodsys succeeds in extorting money from independent developers then every man and his dog will try and give it a go. The Apple developer ecosystem couldn't possibly survive in its present state.
nh 15y ago
patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7222078.PN.&OS=PN/7222078&RS=PN/7222078 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
- robinduckett 15y ago
  Why do people never put god damn paragraphs in these things? IANA Software Patent Lawyer, but I see no mention of initiating sale of a sub product through a product application. (i.e. In-App Purchases). I only see a vauge description of listing products to purchase. If that's the case, surely every e-commerce site, app, online grocery list, falls under this patent. Surely there are things that predate this patent that could be used as prior art?
  - chc 15y ago
    Even reasonably specific patents often look overly broad if you don't know how to read them, so that it looks like " surely every e-commerce site, app, online grocery list, falls under this patent." This is one of the things that patent lawyers have over most people.
- bitsm 15y ago
  How does this not also cover every web browser in existence? This seems to cover any networked communications system. Analytics and online ads would seem to be especially vulnerable. All I can see is this guy is really good at writing patents. If you can't beat em, bury them in citations and they'll think you know what you're doing.
  - greatreorx 15y ago
    It seems like by doing the following, they get priority for any obviousness and prior art arguments back to 1992, but a filing date of 2003. "This application is a continuation application of and claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 09/370,663, filed on Aug. 6, 1999, now abandoned which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/934,457, filed Sep. 19, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,908, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/243,63 8, filed May 16, 1994, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 07/926,333, filed Aug. 6, 1992, now abandoned, the contents of each of which are incorporated by reference in their entireties. "
benatkin 15y ago
This angers me: > Making something, and selling something are different art forms. http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-unethical-you-are-extortionistsetc.html http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-... Doing business with consent, and without consent are different art forms.
zexvux 15y ago
I have an idea. If the patents were created to protect inventors, why just not forbid of any sale of patents to the third parties. The patent cannot be sold or inherited period.
- amosson 15y ago
  The ability to sell patents give investors some downside protection when funding a startup. Every VC I've ever pitched to asks - "What's patentable". If you don't end up making money off selling a product / service, at least there is the hope of selling a "asset"
- lftl 15y ago
  Playing devil's advocate here (I don't think software patents should exist, or at a minimum the bar should be significantly raised in what constitutes a patentable idea): What if I'm really just an inventor type, and I don't have any of the skills or the desire necessary to go about making money off my patent. I imagine negotiating with Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. isn't a simple make a phone call and start receiving checks type process. Not allowing an inventor to sell his patent limits seriously limits a major avenue of revenue for the inventor.
- flipbrad 15y ago
  Assignment of IP to the employer is presumably a clause in just about every employment contract any founder ever imposes on new recruits to their startup - on pain of them leaving and trying to hold the startup hostage over their contributions. What you're suggesting, I fear, is just too blunt. What about a bad faith doctrine, forbidding NPEs (non practising entities, aka trolls) from enforcing a patent - only those who exploit their IP in-house can enforce their monopoly against others? Or, alternatively, linking one supposed purpose of patent protection - disclosure of ideas to the world (I gather that incentivisation to innovate is another) - to the ability to sue. So for example, only patents that are cited as prior art in future applications can be enforced against third parties. Evidently, making the 'obviousness' and inventive step blocks to patent granting more potent should be the first step considered. Who loses, exactly, by making patents harder to get? Can't IP advocates accept that this would make creators strive to be more creative or innovative?
phonehome 15y ago
I'm on the fence with patents... overall I think the response by Lodsys is reasonable and if their license fees are as the article states, then it should not be to much of a burden to developers. My guess is Apple financially works out something with Lodsys so all iOS apps are extended a license.
- orangecat 15y ago
  And when 50 other trolls come out from under their bridges with equally vacuous patents, each demanding a "reasonable" half percent? Nope, the developers and/or Apple need to crush these guys and burn their village to the ground.
- runjake 15y ago
  I have a hard time using reasonable in a sentence along with any company who's sole purpose is to buy up vague patents and sue or bully companies into licensing "their" technologies. But that's just me.
lotusleaf1987 15y ago
Apple should just sue them back so hard no one will ever think to try this crap again. I prefer them not to pay these scumbags a dime, it would set a precedent that would only encourage more trolls.
- chc 15y ago
  Sue them for what? It's not like a fistfight, where you can jus punch the other guy. Lawsuits need to have legal grounds.
  - lotusleaf1987 15y ago
    They have an army of lawyers, I'm sure they could find something.
dodo53 15y ago
There needs to be a cash penalty for people bringing frivolous patent claims - and that money should be awarded to the defendant. Then you could get no-win-no-fee laywers defending collections of small devs against claims they think are unlikely to win but which the devs couldn't afford to defend against.
- bconway 15y ago
  Texas passed such a bill last week, and others are hoping to take it nation-wide. I'm skeptical on the latter. http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235348-loser-pays-bill-passes-texas-house-in-emergency-saturday-session http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235348-loser-pays-bill-pas... http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235498-texas-lawmaker-proposes-reforms-to-federal-rule-regarding-frivolous-lawsuits http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235498-texas-lawmaker-prop...
flipbrad 15y ago
My big question for apple and others is whether it's possible that by opting to not get a volume license the patent for downstream users of their platform, they might therefore face a suit alleging contributory or secondary patent infringement? For example, taken from this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_United_Kingdom_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_Unite...), is a summary of the position in the UK: "By the supply, or offer to supply, in the United Kingdom, a person not entitled to work the invention, with any of the means, relating to an essential element of the invention, for putting the invention into effect, when it is known (or it is reasonable to expect such knowledge) that those means are suitable for putting, and are intended to put, the invention into effect in the United Kingdom."
state_machine 15y ago
Attention Anonymous: a new target for your roving DDoS has made itself available. Get to work.
scott_s 15y ago
I think it's really on Apple to step in and protect their developers here. There are many problems with working in a walled garden, which have been discussed at length here. But there should be, at least, one benefit: the garden's curator has your back.
nhangen 15y ago
I want to know how this affects Apple's position re: in app purchase on things like Kindle app, Sony ereader app, Grooveshark, Rhapsody, etc... I just can't believe that they didn't see this coming.
shareme 15y ago
I suggest a different approach..if the company name of Lodsys LLC is not trademarked..than hey Best Game making fun of Lodys..wins! So how many Indie mobile game devs are on HN besides me?
dpcan 15y ago
This doesn't make sense. Apple/Google have apparently paid the license fee for the patents - so are they JUST paying the 0.575% of THEIR OWN APP sales? Is part of the 30% being withheld from developers paying for some of these patent licensing fees? If so, yes, I too believe Apple needs to jump in here and find out what the hell is going on. If not, and Apple knew that every one of its developers using in-app purchases would probably be infringing a patent they already knew about and are paying for, shouldn't this be brought up somewhere when a dev chooses to include in-app purchases in their app? Is it? Is it in the TOS somewhere?
- dchest 15y ago
  I don't think they had the same deal. Maybe the trolls licensed patents to them for $1 in order to have big names in licensees.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
So I'm guessing this will also apply to the Chrome Web Store when it launches in-app payments, right?
wallflower 15y ago
I wonder what Lemelson would have thought about Lodsys and Intellectual Ventures. "You cannot develop a reputation for somebody who gives up. You have to be known as a fighter for your rights. Otherwise, you'll never license anything...Even Thomas Edison had a tough time supporting and protecting his patents. He spent about $1.4 million [to defend his inventions], and this was around the turn of the century, when beer was a nickel." -Jerome H. Lemelson (1923-1997) Arguably the most successful inventor (in terms of revenue from patents) ever. His legacy is the Lemelson-MIT Award for Invention and Innovation [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson [2] http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-main.html http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-main.html
shad0wfax 15y ago
Sigh, I really wish Apple steps in to weed out such frivolous patents. When should a dev/startup be worried about IP research?
caf 15y ago
It seems to me that with this: "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.''" ...Lodsys are actually putting forward an effective argument against long-lived software patents. It didn't become obvious because of the disclosure of the "invention" in this patent - it became independently obvious through the progression of the start of the art. 20+ year patents certainly shouldn't be granted on "inventions" that would have become obvious anyway within a fraction of that time.

99 points by DeusExMachina 15y ago

If we accept this kind of shit, there will soon be hundreds of leeches asking for their share of our money. And then even the most wealthy developers will feel the pain. I say squash those bugs early. If Apple, Google, and MS pay, they are stupid.

bigiain 15y ago
Reminds me of this post from yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2551436 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2551436 What was written as fiction, is actually happening in real life. We've made defending against frivolous patent claims expensive enough that someone with a broad enough patent can nickel and dime a large enough group of people hoping many of them will say "0.575%? Fuck it, I'll just pay..." It will be interesting to see how this pans out in the long run...

robinduckett 15y ago

If I make a music sharing site where people can upload their own music and sell their music, and my company which made the site licensed the MP3 codec or another proprietary codec to release the music files for sale, does this mean the licenser of the codec could then individually sue each person selling their music on my site, because they don't individually own a license for the codec, even though they are just using the tools provided for by them by a license holder? This just doesn't make sense.

ZeSmith 15y ago
Patent trolling is a highly effective business model, but it has to make no sense in order to work.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  Patent trolling...it has to make no sense in order to work. No, it just has to make no sense in order to make tech news. Otherwise, it would be something like: "NEWSFLASH! Perfectly sensible licensing deal!"
  - mattdeboard 15y ago
    If it's perfectly reasonable, then I'd say it's not trolling.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      So then, "Patent trolling, it has to be unreasonable to exist." This shows differences in generational understanding of words. "Trolling" in this case predates the widespread use with regards to Internet behavior and actually refers to fishing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing) Just as trolling attempts to mimic a real school of fish, patent trolling attempts to mimic the legitimate licensing of productive patents. The reasonableness of the "bait" is entirely up to those doing the trolling. (And is largely subjective, which perhaps highlights a fundamental weakness of the current patent system.)
flipbrad 15y ago
That would probably depend on the terms of the IP licence. Does it cover downstream users, or not? If you're a platform, you get (hopefully, if you were properly advised) what you paid for. What you then represent to your downstream users to bring them to your platform should be honest, though. Prospective platform users presumably want to known whether this is a good platform for their business, i.e. IP-sandboxed, reliable, safe, with large footfall. It presumably wasn't in fact IP-sandboxed. By that I mean that the upstream licensors have been selfish in their negotiations, or the platform doesn't indemnify you against claims, or even at least offer to coordinate a circling of developer wagons. What's interesting to know if whether they've nevertheless held it out as an IP-safe platform; if not, caveat emptor probably applies, and developers are now presumably kicking themselves for not making IP safety a part of their due diligence before contracting with apple, etc, for a platform on which to build their business. Realities aside, it's tremendously regrettable that indy software developers and inventors are supposed to have to worry about third party IP rights, particularly over their usage of major commercial platforms for their business.

dododo 15y ago

here's the actual explanation from lodsys: http://www.lodsys.com/blog.html http://www.lodsys.com/blog.html they mention apple, google, microsoft have some sort of license from them, i wonder if the relatively low cost of a license is the reason: http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-charging.html http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-charging... i.e., cheaper to just pay them off than fight it.

ansy 15y ago
Although the blog states Apple, Google and Microsoft have a deal for themselves and Lodsys is not specifically seeking a broader deal to cover third parties as well, it seems rather obvious Apple et al would be much better off collecting this 0.575% on behalf of Lodsys rather than degrade the usability of In App Purchase by requiring developers to secure a license separately. At least that's the Apple thing to do if Apple really sees this patent as legitimate. Of course, that's probably what Apple thought it was getting and probably feels it got tricked by Lodsys if that was the case.
brandall10 15y ago
I wonder if they disclosed to Apple et al. that they would also be pursuing licensing from their developer base.

lmarinho 15y ago

Craig Grannell wrote an answer to the Lodsys blog: http://reverttosaved.com/2011/05/16/lodsys-responds-to-trolling-accusations-regarding-ios-in-app-payments/ http://reverttosaved.com/2011/05/16/lodsys-responds-to-troll...

mikecane 15y ago

Well, this is one hell of a Gotcha! for everyone who is using in-app purchasing. Wasn't it the responsibility of Apple, Google, MS, to inform developers of this? Hm, I wonder if HP has a license for webOS. And does this apply to desktop in-app purchases? What about in-app web app purchases? Does Facebook and its devs need a license?

barrettcolin 15y ago
Reportedly, it isn't restricted to just in-app purchase: http://twitter.com/#!/jamesthomson/status/70095343605391360 http://twitter.com/#!/jamesthomson/status/70095343605391360
- mikecane 15y ago
  Hmmm... could that have been a notice error in their glee to target everyone? If it applies, this is a damn bigger issue than everybody yet understands!

schrototo 15y ago

"But for an app developer to take a year or two to write an application and to see money from the app, is good fortune built on top of the contributions of the entire shared ecosystem, including independent inventor’s patent outputs such as Abelow’s." [1] Oh give me a fucking break. Yeah, us developers would be utterly lost without the exciting "inventions" of Abelow and Lodsys LLC. [1] http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-unethical-you-are-extortionistsetc.html http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-...

JoeCortopassi 15y ago
The bigger issue, is that the current 'in app purchase' system is mandated by Apple to be the only way purchases can be made for your app. Apple licensed this technology, mandated it on it's developers, then failed to mention that it required a separate fee to be paid to a third party for use. How is this not getting more notice? Lodsys is evil, no doubt, but what Apple did right there is shady as heck.
- schrototo 15y ago
  I can't imagine that Apple would willfully put its entire app ecosystem at risk like that.
- bigiain 15y ago
  Makes their recent destruction of competing iOS ebook apps even more insidious... "We'll require you to sell everything via in app purchases at 30% commission to us, even though we know the industry standard gross margin comes out to exactly that 30% we're going to take off you. Oh, and we're not going to tell you about the patent we've got a licence for which means you're going to owe somebody else another 0.575% as well. Good luck making a living on that." Thanks Apple... You're making the decision about whether to invest my time in iOS app development for my clients a lot easier... HTML5 mobile webapps FTW...

reitzensteinm 15y ago

I've been kicking an idea around in my head for a while, although I've got no idea if it's viable or not. But it seems like it could put a stop to this kind of a thing. Basically, it would be a non profit organization that accepts donations of patents by hackers, and uses them to sue only companies that themselves have used patents offensively. Blatant patent trolls could also become targeted for life at future businesses - although I'm not sure of the legality of this - to serve as a severe disincentive for this kind of behavior. Although it might take a while and quite a bit of money to get started, it seems like it would fund itself indefinitely once going, and enough people seem to be pissed off enough about the current situation that a serious amount of brainpower could be donated to the project. Does anyone see any showstoppers for something like this, or is it just a matter of not having someone benevolent and gutsy enough to pull it off?

schrototo 15y ago
The problem being: patent trolls like Lodsys LLC do not actually create anything. There's nothing to countersue over.
- reitzensteinm 15y ago
  That's the point of the marked for life bit, if it were legal - and it seems like it probably isn't, IANAL etc. But if it were, anyone setting up a patent trolling company would be targeted at future companies as well, which is a very concrete disincentive. Ex patent trolls would basically run the very real risk of being unemployable, and have trouble starting legitimate ventures as well.
  - khafra 15y ago
    If we drop the concerns over legality, what about starting rumors that there's a secret offshore blind trust, contributed to by both deep-pocketed victims of patent trolls and open-source developers. A trust which exists to take the other side of anonymous bets regarding the death or disappearance of patent trolls.
- 15y ago

xedarius 15y ago

Given the following situation. I have an app with in-app purchase. I don't live in the US and your patent is meaningless where I live, and yet I sell my app in your country. Wonder how the legal wrangling works with that one. As a lot of people will be in this situation.

sajid 15y ago

Apple needs to step in and sort this out, it's in their best interests to do so. If Lodsys succeeds in extorting money from independent developers then every man and his dog will try and give it a go. The Apple developer ecosystem couldn't possibly survive in its present state.

nh 15y ago

patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7222078.PN.&OS=PN/7222078&RS=PN/7222078 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

robinduckett 15y ago
Why do people never put god damn paragraphs in these things? IANA Software Patent Lawyer, but I see no mention of initiating sale of a sub product through a product application. (i.e. In-App Purchases). I only see a vauge description of listing products to purchase. If that's the case, surely every e-commerce site, app, online grocery list, falls under this patent. Surely there are things that predate this patent that could be used as prior art?
- chc 15y ago
  Even reasonably specific patents often look overly broad if you don't know how to read them, so that it looks like " surely every e-commerce site, app, online grocery list, falls under this patent." This is one of the things that patent lawyers have over most people.
bitsm 15y ago
How does this not also cover every web browser in existence? This seems to cover any networked communications system. Analytics and online ads would seem to be especially vulnerable. All I can see is this guy is really good at writing patents. If you can't beat em, bury them in citations and they'll think you know what you're doing.
- greatreorx 15y ago
  It seems like by doing the following, they get priority for any obviousness and prior art arguments back to 1992, but a filing date of 2003. "This application is a continuation application of and claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 09/370,663, filed on Aug. 6, 1999, now abandoned which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/934,457, filed Sep. 19, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,908, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/243,63 8, filed May 16, 1994, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 07/926,333, filed Aug. 6, 1992, now abandoned, the contents of each of which are incorporated by reference in their entireties. "

benatkin 15y ago

This angers me: > Making something, and selling something are different art forms. http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-unethical-you-are-extortionistsetc.html http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-... Doing business with consent, and without consent are different art forms.

zexvux 15y ago

I have an idea. If the patents were created to protect inventors, why just not forbid of any sale of patents to the third parties. The patent cannot be sold or inherited period.

amosson 15y ago
The ability to sell patents give investors some downside protection when funding a startup. Every VC I've ever pitched to asks - "What's patentable". If you don't end up making money off selling a product / service, at least there is the hope of selling a "asset"
lftl 15y ago
Playing devil's advocate here (I don't think software patents should exist, or at a minimum the bar should be significantly raised in what constitutes a patentable idea): What if I'm really just an inventor type, and I don't have any of the skills or the desire necessary to go about making money off my patent. I imagine negotiating with Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. isn't a simple make a phone call and start receiving checks type process. Not allowing an inventor to sell his patent limits seriously limits a major avenue of revenue for the inventor.
flipbrad 15y ago
Assignment of IP to the employer is presumably a clause in just about every employment contract any founder ever imposes on new recruits to their startup - on pain of them leaving and trying to hold the startup hostage over their contributions. What you're suggesting, I fear, is just too blunt. What about a bad faith doctrine, forbidding NPEs (non practising entities, aka trolls) from enforcing a patent - only those who exploit their IP in-house can enforce their monopoly against others? Or, alternatively, linking one supposed purpose of patent protection - disclosure of ideas to the world (I gather that incentivisation to innovate is another) - to the ability to sue. So for example, only patents that are cited as prior art in future applications can be enforced against third parties. Evidently, making the 'obviousness' and inventive step blocks to patent granting more potent should be the first step considered. Who loses, exactly, by making patents harder to get? Can't IP advocates accept that this would make creators strive to be more creative or innovative?

phonehome 15y ago

I'm on the fence with patents... overall I think the response by Lodsys is reasonable and if their license fees are as the article states, then it should not be to much of a burden to developers. My guess is Apple financially works out something with Lodsys so all iOS apps are extended a license.

orangecat 15y ago
And when 50 other trolls come out from under their bridges with equally vacuous patents, each demanding a "reasonable" half percent? Nope, the developers and/or Apple need to crush these guys and burn their village to the ground.
runjake 15y ago
I have a hard time using reasonable in a sentence along with any company who's sole purpose is to buy up vague patents and sue or bully companies into licensing "their" technologies. But that's just me.

lotusleaf1987 15y ago

Apple should just sue them back so hard no one will ever think to try this crap again. I prefer them not to pay these scumbags a dime, it would set a precedent that would only encourage more trolls.

chc 15y ago
Sue them for what? It's not like a fistfight, where you can jus punch the other guy. Lawsuits need to have legal grounds.
- lotusleaf1987 15y ago
  They have an army of lawyers, I'm sure they could find something.

dodo53 15y ago

There needs to be a cash penalty for people bringing frivolous patent claims - and that money should be awarded to the defendant. Then you could get no-win-no-fee laywers defending collections of small devs against claims they think are unlikely to win but which the devs couldn't afford to defend against.

bconway 15y ago
Texas passed such a bill last week, and others are hoping to take it nation-wide. I'm skeptical on the latter. http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235348-loser-pays-bill-passes-texas-house-in-emergency-saturday-session http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235348-loser-pays-bill-pas... http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235498-texas-lawmaker-proposes-reforms-to-federal-rule-regarding-frivolous-lawsuits http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235498-texas-lawmaker-prop...

flipbrad 15y ago

My big question for apple and others is whether it's possible that by opting to not get a volume license the patent for downstream users of their platform, they might therefore face a suit alleging contributory or secondary patent infringement? For example, taken from this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_United_Kingdom_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_Unite...), is a summary of the position in the UK: "By the supply, or offer to supply, in the United Kingdom, a person not entitled to work the invention, with any of the means, relating to an essential element of the invention, for putting the invention into effect, when it is known (or it is reasonable to expect such knowledge) that those means are suitable for putting, and are intended to put, the invention into effect in the United Kingdom."

state_machine 15y ago

Attention Anonymous: a new target for your roving DDoS has made itself available. Get to work.

scott_s 15y ago

I think it's really on Apple to step in and protect their developers here. There are many problems with working in a walled garden, which have been discussed at length here. But there should be, at least, one benefit: the garden's curator has your back.

nhangen 15y ago

I want to know how this affects Apple's position re: in app purchase on things like Kindle app, Sony ereader app, Grooveshark, Rhapsody, etc... I just can't believe that they didn't see this coming.

shareme 15y ago

I suggest a different approach..if the company name of Lodsys LLC is not trademarked..than hey Best Game making fun of Lodys..wins! So how many Indie mobile game devs are on HN besides me?

dpcan 15y ago

This doesn't make sense. Apple/Google have apparently paid the license fee for the patents - so are they JUST paying the 0.575% of THEIR OWN APP sales? Is part of the 30% being withheld from developers paying for some of these patent licensing fees? If so, yes, I too believe Apple needs to jump in here and find out what the hell is going on. If not, and Apple knew that every one of its developers using in-app purchases would probably be infringing a patent they already knew about and are paying for, shouldn't this be brought up somewhere when a dev chooses to include in-app purchases in their app? Is it? Is it in the TOS somewhere?

dchest 15y ago
I don't think they had the same deal. Maybe the trolls licensed patents to them for $1 in order to have big names in licensees.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

So I'm guessing this will also apply to the Chrome Web Store when it launches in-app payments, right?

wallflower 15y ago

I wonder what Lemelson would have thought about Lodsys and Intellectual Ventures. "You cannot develop a reputation for somebody who gives up. You have to be known as a fighter for your rights. Otherwise, you'll never license anything...Even Thomas Edison had a tough time supporting and protecting his patents. He spent about $1.4 million [to defend his inventions], and this was around the turn of the century, when beer was a nickel." -Jerome H. Lemelson (1923-1997) Arguably the most successful inventor (in terms of revenue from patents) ever. His legacy is the Lemelson-MIT Award for Invention and Innovation [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson [2] http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-main.html http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-main.html

shad0wfax 15y ago

Sigh, I really wish Apple steps in to weed out such frivolous patents. When should a dev/startup be worried about IP research?

caf 15y ago

It seems to me that with this: "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.''" ...Lodsys are actually putting forward an effective argument against long-lived software patents. It didn't become obvious because of the disclosure of the "invention" in this patent - it became independently obvious through the progression of the start of the art. 20+ year patents certainly shouldn't be granted on "inventions" that would have become obvious anyway within a fraction of that time.