5 ms·

Hardly. Apple isn't claiming the patents are invalid or that software patents in general are invalid - they're simply claiming that Lodsys is trying to get iOS

Hardly. Apple isn't claiming the patents are invalid or that software patents in general are invalid - they're simply claiming that Lodsys is trying to get iOS app developers to pay for something that Apple has already bought (and been given rights to license to the iOS developers).

rbanffy 15y ago
> something that Apple has already bought Implying they support software patents.
- ugh 15y ago
  That’s ridiculous. I can be opposed to the current income tax rate while still paying all my taxes. Observing the law should not be confused with endorsing the law.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    You seem to believe Lodsys patents are as unavoidable as the taxes you pay. That's a funny idea. They are not. Apple could have taken Lodsys to court for their patents were, in fact, quite feeble. Now, thanks in part to Apple, Lodsys has enough money to litigate. The only way to crush a troll is if everyone refuses to pay extortion for worthless patents. Without a source of easy money, the troll dies.
    - ugh 15y ago
      Apple’s lawyers seem to believe that licensing those patents is unavoidable or at the very least that not licensing would cost more than licensing them. You might disagree with that interpretation of the law but you should never claim that it’s an endorsement of software patents. I do not know Apple’s stance on software patents but I simply cannot see how Apple’s actions in this case can be interpreted as revealing Apple’s stance on software patents in any way.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        I do not disagree that crushing Lodsys forever would have cost more than enabling it by paying their racket. OTOH, it will cost more to the market as whole not having crushed Lodsys when it was easy and, by helping it grow, Apple has done a disservice to us all. And yes. They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing?
        sorbus 15y ago
        > They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing? Apple is a corporation. That is exactly how corporations behave: they do not take a stand unless they see material benefit in doing so. If you want to claim that something is revealing about Apple's view of patents, perhaps you should consider the number of patents Apple has. Also, an analogy: if someone mugs me and I hand over my wallet, that does not mean that I'm endorsing the process of mugging. It means that I've decided that the known cost of complying (the contents of my wallet) is less than the potential cost of any injuries I might sustain in the process of fighting back.
        rbanffy 15y ago
        Apple is a corporation, but we like to delude ourselves thinking they are a different kind of corporation, founded on different values.
- danssig 15y ago
  Why wouldn't they support software patents? The dispute here isn't some silly ideological pissing contest about whether software patents are valid or not. This is Apple saying they bought these licenses to be used in the App store and the same patent can't then be applied to their own customers.

rbanffy 15y ago

> something that Apple has already bought Implying they support software patents.

ugh 15y ago
That’s ridiculous. I can be opposed to the current income tax rate while still paying all my taxes. Observing the law should not be confused with endorsing the law.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  You seem to believe Lodsys patents are as unavoidable as the taxes you pay. That's a funny idea. They are not. Apple could have taken Lodsys to court for their patents were, in fact, quite feeble. Now, thanks in part to Apple, Lodsys has enough money to litigate. The only way to crush a troll is if everyone refuses to pay extortion for worthless patents. Without a source of easy money, the troll dies.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Apple’s lawyers seem to believe that licensing those patents is unavoidable or at the very least that not licensing would cost more than licensing them. You might disagree with that interpretation of the law but you should never claim that it’s an endorsement of software patents. I do not know Apple’s stance on software patents but I simply cannot see how Apple’s actions in this case can be interpreted as revealing Apple’s stance on software patents in any way.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      I do not disagree that crushing Lodsys forever would have cost more than enabling it by paying their racket. OTOH, it will cost more to the market as whole not having crushed Lodsys when it was easy and, by helping it grow, Apple has done a disservice to us all. And yes. They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing?
      - sorbus 15y ago
        > They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing? Apple is a corporation. That is exactly how corporations behave: they do not take a stand unless they see material benefit in doing so. If you want to claim that something is revealing about Apple's view of patents, perhaps you should consider the number of patents Apple has. Also, an analogy: if someone mugs me and I hand over my wallet, that does not mean that I'm endorsing the process of mugging. It means that I've decided that the known cost of complying (the contents of my wallet) is less than the potential cost of any injuries I might sustain in the process of fighting back.
        rbanffy 15y ago
        Apple is a corporation, but we like to delude ourselves thinking they are a different kind of corporation, founded on different values.
danssig 15y ago
Why wouldn't they support software patents? The dispute here isn't some silly ideological pissing contest about whether software patents are valid or not. This is Apple saying they bought these licenses to be used in the App store and the same patent can't then be applied to their own customers.