5 ms·

Don't forget, though, that this is unlikely to be the end. Lodsys clearly disagrees with this, given that they sent the letters to the developers, and will prob

by eykanal 15y ago

Don't forget, though, that this is unlikely to be the end. Lodsys clearly disagrees with this, given that they sent the letters to the developers, and will probably take Apple to court over whether the license applies to the app makers or not.

arn 15y ago
but at least the legal burden then falls on Apple and not mom & pop app dev. Worst case scenario I'd expect Apple pays Lodsys an undisclosed sum to license the tech for the devs.
- forensic 15y ago
  The legal burden will fall on both apple and the mom & pops. They aren't going to withdraw their suits just because apple threatens them.
  - arn 15y ago
    Lodsys hasn't actually yet filed suit against anyone. Just sent threatening letters.
  - toadkick 15y ago
    Perhaps, but now Apple has contested that their developers are in fact licensed, and that Lodsys has already received what they claim is due to them. Seems like they've found a way to inject themselves into the battle in a way that should bring the fight home to them.
- linker3000 15y ago
  Hmm, you don't think Lodsys reckoned the same way, do you?
brudgers 15y ago
I don't see why Lodsys would take Apple to court given that both parties acknowledge that Apple and Lodsys have a licensing agreement for the technology. And the given the fact that Lodsys's claim is that Appstore developers do not have such a license their pursuit of individual developers makes sense. As it stands now, if there is to be a suit between Apple and Lodsys, it will require Apple to act as plaintiff on behalf of its developers and that could potentially open up a huge can of worms for Apple because it could establish a higher level obligations and responsibilities between Apple and its developers. The fact that Apple responded via public letter rather than lawsuit is indicative of approaching this as a PR issue rather than a serious licensing issue - i.e. if it was clear that Apple's agreement with Lodsys allowed them to sub-license the technology to third parties they would have sought an injunction rather than issuing what boils down to essentially a press release.
- knshaum 15y ago
  Seems to me (IANAL) that Apple could sue on fraud or breach of contract: if Lodsys sold a license to Apple on the pretext that the developers were covered, and then later went after those developers as if they weren't covered, Apple could claim that Lodsys either misrepresented themselves, or failed to honor their side of the contract.

by eykanal 15y ago

arn 15y ago

but at least the legal burden then falls on Apple and not mom & pop app dev. Worst case scenario I'd expect Apple pays Lodsys an undisclosed sum to license the tech for the devs.

forensic 15y ago
The legal burden will fall on both apple and the mom & pops. They aren't going to withdraw their suits just because apple threatens them.
- arn 15y ago
  Lodsys hasn't actually yet filed suit against anyone. Just sent threatening letters.
- toadkick 15y ago
  Perhaps, but now Apple has contested that their developers are in fact licensed, and that Lodsys has already received what they claim is due to them. Seems like they've found a way to inject themselves into the battle in a way that should bring the fight home to them.
linker3000 15y ago
Hmm, you don't think Lodsys reckoned the same way, do you?

brudgers 15y ago

I don't see why Lodsys would take Apple to court given that both parties acknowledge that Apple and Lodsys have a licensing agreement for the technology. And the given the fact that Lodsys's claim is that Appstore developers do not have such a license their pursuit of individual developers makes sense. As it stands now, if there is to be a suit between Apple and Lodsys, it will require Apple to act as plaintiff on behalf of its developers and that could potentially open up a huge can of worms for Apple because it could establish a higher level obligations and responsibilities between Apple and its developers. The fact that Apple responded via public letter rather than lawsuit is indicative of approaching this as a PR issue rather than a serious licensing issue - i.e. if it was clear that Apple's agreement with Lodsys allowed them to sub-license the technology to third parties they would have sought an injunction rather than issuing what boils down to essentially a press release.

knshaum 15y ago
Seems to me (IANAL) that Apple could sue on fraud or breach of contract: if Lodsys sold a license to Apple on the pretext that the developers were covered, and then later went after those developers as if they weren't covered, Apple could claim that Lodsys either misrepresented themselves, or failed to honor their side of the contract.