

Patent troll Lodsys now after apps with 'More Apps' links - modmax
http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=100387

======
dstein
The only difference between Lodsys and large software/hardware companies like
Microsoft and Oracle is the size of their litigation targets.

I'm beyond convinced that the entire software patent systems needs to be
abolished.

~~~
powertower
My understanding is that Microsoft hates software patents (at least when BillG
was CEO), has only registered them out of necessity, has historically only
sued relatively few other companies, and only done so with either real patents
(non-obvious, read beyond the patent title) or as a retaliation of being sued
itself. I’m sure there are a few exceptions here as there are always.

~~~
dstein
They aren't suing every Android OEM out of necessity. Microsoft has converted
to patent troll in lieu of innovating in the mobile space.

~~~
ssebro
That's not exactly true- they are innovating, but they're also a patent troll.
There's no reason why they can't be both.

~~~
cube13
You can't be a patent troll if you're actually making a product. The entire
"business model" of a patent troll is to make money off of lawsuits, not from
actually selling things.

~~~
eru
Yes. Though of course, if a big company that was actually making things,
bought a patent troll and just let the get on with their business, I'd still
be inclined to call the new subsidiary a patent troll.

~~~
cube13
This is true. I probably should have said "companies that make products
related to their patents cannot be patent trolls".

------
BenoitEssiambre
The act of writing software can be summarized as generating ideas and writing
down these ideas in a language computers can understand and execute. Software
programmers are in the business of writing ideas all day. This combined with
the fact that the bar for ideas being patentable is very low means that
programmers probably generate and write down multiple patentable ideas per
day. From the get go they are inevitably setting up a huge patent minefield.

I don’t know if anyone has ever calculated the average density of patentable
ideas in code, but if you consider, for example, that performing an online
transaction with the last entered customer data (the infamous 1-Click patent)
is patentable, I would very roughly estimate that there is a patentable idea
every 20 to 50 lines of code. As an example, the Linux kernel (just the very
core of Linux) contains more that 10 millions lines of code. If you consider a
complete Linux distribution (by adding the graphical user interface and a
bunch of utilities) you get at least ten times that amount, that is more than
100 millions lines of code. Using the rough estimate above, we can calculate
that there are more than 2 millions patentable ideas in a consumer operating
system. That is an incredible amount of complexity. In fact, it is a testament
to human ingenuity that we can (sometimes) get all this code to work together.

Now code is not used side by side like an infantry of little computer
processes working in parallel to make computers or phones go. It is rather
organised and packaged in a huge network of building blocks, a pyramid of
hundreds of thousands of libraries, APIs or functions heavily inter-dependent
on each other. What’s more, the building blocks are usually not all written by
the same people or organisations and their consistent and stable behavior is
critical for enabling compatibility (remember, often between millions of parts
made by thousands of developers).

This hierarchical and networked architecture is inevitable and the best way to
organise complex information, however the stability it requires at the bottom
of the pyramid means that some building blocks cannot be changed once the
pyramid is built. Someone claiming ownership of the shape of a bottom block
after the pyramid is built, someone having the power to force a bottom block
to be removed and replaced with a different shaped one, no matter how simple
and obvious this bloc is, does not have power over just this block but over
the whole structure above it and all the components that depend on it. This
means patent holders have a disproportionately large amount of power when they
target such a bloc. They know that changing it would require tearing down,
redesigning and replacing often thousands of dependent projects and probably
break compatibility for millions of users of these projects. It is usually
simply not an option.

------
chrislomax
This annoys me because it is scaring off people from developing for smart
phones. This patent is so vague that even if I did know every patent ever made
then I would not even associate it with what patent he is claiming he has
violated.

Bring back Lulzsec for a day, get them to hack their systems and delete all
their patents.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a patent for people communicating over the
internet and we are all about to be sued.

~~~
cydonian_monk
Not just SmartPhones. This kind of insanity makes me question whether I should
write another line of code for anything.

~~~
cageface
Indeed. Opening a bar instead is looking better all the time.

~~~
tomjen3
Heck, run for Congress.

Then you are one the receiving end of all the bribes.

------
modmax
How is something this vague "directed to systems and methods for providers of
products and/or services to interact with users of those products and services
to gather information from those users and transmit that information to the
provider" patentable?!

~~~
Hemospectrum
It involves a computer -- and the examiners employed by the PTO just don't
have the time or training to properly understand computer patents. That's the
only explanation.

If examiners can't figure out whether something is patentable, they err on the
side of good faith on the part of the applicant, and leave the question to the
courts.

~~~
jamesbritt
_It involves a computer -- and the examiners employed by the PTO just don't
have the time or training to properly understand computer patents. That's the
only explanation._

That's the only explanation? Doubtful.

I know someone at the patent office, an examiner who handles tech patents.
When I asked about certain patents she explained that you need to look at the
complete patent application and the specific behavior or items in the claim.
Titles are often very broad for convenience. Also, patent applications tend to
start broad and go narrow, with the overly broad requests (usually) denied.

 _If examiners can't figure out whether something is patentable, they err on
the side of good faith on the part of the applicant, and leave the question to
the courts._

Where did you get this information from?

As it was explained to me if a patent is not clear or what is being claimed
not readily understood by the examiner then it gets sent back for revision.
There does not appear to be any "good faith" involved.

Some patent holders like to claim that one of their narrowly defined patents
applies to much broader behavior, and then threaten people with legal action.
In this case it is quite possible for a non-tech judge to decide that a patent
applies to things it really shouldn't.

I don't doubt there are bullshit patents or that some patent examiners aren't
as educated as they should be, but I also don't see any reason to think the
examiners are just so harried and untrained that they just shrug their
shoulders and assume everything is legit.

There are two problems with the current patent system. One is that patents are
granted where they shouldn't be. The other is that legitimate patents on
specific, narrow, precise items or behavior are later used to extort money
from people because untrained lawyers and judges will decide that a very
narrow patent should, incorrectly, apply to more broader cases.

~~~
lukeschlather
I don't see how any variation on these claims is patentable. Everything there
would have been obvious 25 years ago.

------
davesims
I was in DC yesterday, walking by the patent office and saw this quote from
Lincoln over the door: "The Patent Office adds the flame of interest to the
light of creativity"

I wonder what Lincoln would think of Lodsys.

------
sdizdar
The things what Lodsys is doing right now is actually very good. There are
more copy-cat trolls coming to the market based on the same idea "buy some
patents and let sue many private proprietors and ask them $1000 to drop
suite".

Eventually, it will be obvious even to our representatives in Washington that
something is broken and they will be forced to fix it.

As they say, our representatives will try doing the right thing but only after
they try all the wrong things first.

~~~
stcredzero
So then, there is an important free market niche for "douchebags who are smart
enough to exploit X, but too stupid and greedy to avoid outraging the wrong
people."

------
rockarage
It seems Lodsys was able to successfully patent the hyperlink, U.S. patent
system has some serious problems. Patent trolling is not the only problem, the
patent office granting patents, where the is no merit, is another big problem.

~~~
dave1619
I'm not a lawyer, but I did read through all four of their patents. There's no
way Lodsys can claim patenting the hyperlink. It's ridiculous.

~~~
rockarage
yeah, but that's what they are claiming, the app has a link to another app and
they want to sue over that. There is not in app purchase.

------
zentechen
What did Lodsys get that patent in the first place!? Who were the idiots that
approved the patent?

------
thought_alarm
My question is, if you just provide an external "Buy Me" or "More Apps" link
to the App Store you would have no idea who or how many people actually use
that link, and of those who use the link you would have no idea what they did
once they got to the store. They could buy someone else's app, they could
browse some more, they could leave a comment.

So how does that qualify as a "survey" in Lodsys's eyes?

------
mattmcmanus
Where are all of the internet's vigilante hackers when it comes to things like
this?

~~~
stcredzero
Lodsys might actually be an easier target than a large company.

------
shaggyfrog
I have a feeling that Lodsys will continue to iterate on this theme until they
get shut down. Given they have signed a licensing agreement, I'm not sure what
Apple can do, but they should take as active as a role as they can from here
on out. It certainly raises doubts in my mind as to what kind of "buy this
app" link I can put, if anything, in any apps for myself or my clients.

------
dralison
What someone needs to do is get a business process patent on "Patent
Trolling".

~~~
oneplusone
IBM has got that covered: [http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Se...](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220070244837%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070244837&RS=DN/20070244837)

~~~
cruise02
Nice. They beat Haliburton by a full year.
[http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se...](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080270152&OS=20080270152&RS=20080270152)

------
jamesu
I was planning on developing a few paid apps to test the market over the next
few months, but this combined with the other mobile patent lawsuits has made
me seriously reconsider it.

It's a pity the app store servers reside in the US. Otherwise i wouldn't have
to worry about these things!

~~~
cageface
You're not really any safer building any other kind of software, although you
may be subject to less patent troll scrutiny with a web app or something.

------
zentechen
Patent law reform is a must.

------
smashing
Is there any business model which can limit the damages from a patent troll?

------
barrettcolin
This isn't new news if you've been following this business since the start:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2552563>

------
samyzee
if i was you,i'd honorably ask mr.snodgrass to eat shit and die!

------
pr0filer_
Silly patents. TIL it's possible to patent cross-selling methods.

