
Lodsys explains in-app patent warning letters sent to iOS developers - DeusExMachina
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/05/16/lodsys-explains-in-app-patent-warning-letters-sent-to-ios-developers/
======
schrototo
"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-...](http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-unethical-
you-are-extortionistsetc.html)

~~~
JoeCortopassi
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
I can't imagine that Apple would _willfully_ put its entire app ecosystem at
risk like that.

------
reitzensteinm
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
The problem being: patent trolls like Lodsys LLC do not actually _create_
anything. There's nothing to countersue over.

~~~
reitzensteinm
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
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.

------
scott_s
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.

------
dodo53
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
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-
pas...](http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235348-loser-pays-bill-passes-texas-
house-in-emergency-saturday-session)

[http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235498-texas-lawmaker-
prop...](http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235498-texas-lawmaker-proposes-
reforms-to-federal-rule-regarding-frivolous-lawsuits)

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

------
robinduckett
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
Patent trolling is a highly effective business model, but it has to make no
sense in order to work.

~~~
stcredzero
_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
If it's perfectly reasonable, then I'd say it's not trolling.

~~~
stcredzero
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)>

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.)

------
benatkin
This angers me:

> Making something, and selling something are different art forms.

[http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-
is-...](http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-licensing-patents-is-unethical-
you-are-extortionistsetc.html)

Doing business with consent, and without consent are different art forms.

------
surfingdino
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
Reminds me of this post from yesterday:

<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...

------
flipbrad
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_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_United_Kingdom_law)),
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."

------
nh
patent in question:

[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...](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)

~~~
farmer_ted
This patent describes a system for interactively polling users of a system
about their preferences and/or opinions regarding that system's features. The
stated intent is to enable users to provide feedback to potentially inform the
creator of the system in making decisions on feature enhancements.

As with all of these stupid software patents, once you read the details (i.e.
beyond the summary), it becomes more apparent that the patented "invention"
has a distinctly specific application.

This Lodsys letter of solicitation for cash is not much different than a 419
email.

~~~
ryanhuff
On the surface, it sounds more applicable to netflix and amazon, and their
recommendation engines.

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

------
dododo
here's the actual explanation from lodsys: <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...](http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-
charging.html)

i.e., cheaper to just pay them off than fight it.

~~~
ansy
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.

------
xedarius
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
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.

------
dpcan
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
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.

------
zexvux
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.

~~~
lftl
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.

------
mikecane
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
Reportedly, it isn't restricted to just in-app purchase:
<http://twitter.com/#!/jamesthomson/status/70095343605391360>

~~~
mikecane
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!

------
wallflower
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>

[2] <http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-main.html>

------
caf
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.

------
shad0wfax
Sigh, I really wish Apple steps in to weed out such frivolous patents. When
should a dev/startup be worried about IP research?

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

------
nhangen
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.

------
lotusleaf1987
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
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
They have an army of lawyers, I'm sure they could find something.

------
shareme
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?

------
phonehome
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
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.

