

Apple Tells Lodsys Patent Troll to Back Off - dailyrorschach
http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/05/23/apple-says-developers-are-licensed-for-lodsys-patents/
“Apple is undisputedly licensed to these patents and the App Makers are protected by that license,” wrote Bruce Sewell, Apple Senior Vice President and General Counsel."<p>Edit: Full Letter: http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_lodsys_letter_text.html
======
mechanical_fish
On my Mac this page pops up a big full-page ad for some kind of "Clean My
Mac!" software. I'm invited to press a "Try it Now" button.

If this is legit software it is marketed by someone who doesn't mind that
their ad looks and smells exactly like a trojan.

[EDIT: Or, as suggested below, someone has exploited a JS vulnerability.]

EDIT: Modding up the "Macworld" link below.

[MORE EDIT: Removed suggestion that this thing might be malware; I'm choosing
to trust the research of my fellow HN reader, below, who claims it is legit.
Thanks for taking the time.]

~~~
k1lwkf
I've seen these Mac Defender and Mac Protector popups on some reputable sites,
so I'm not sure it's the site that is "permitting" it. I think the trojan is
taking advantage of some JavaScript vulnerability.

~~~
sovande
Probably the old fashion way, via a javascript ad. I use adblock and saw
nothing which strengthen the ad-hypothesis.

------
jasongullickson
Wow, talk about shooting yourself (Lodsys) in the foot -

 _As above, in the notice letters we have seen, Lodsys uses screenshots that
expressly identify the App Store as the entity that purportedly collects and
manages the results of these user interactions at a central location.

Thus, the technology that is targeted in your notice letters is technology
that Apple is expressly licensed under the Lodsys patents to offer to Apple’s
App Makers. These licensed products and services enable Apple’s App Makers to
communicate with end users through the use of Apple’s own licensed hardware,
software, APIs, memory, servers, and interfaces, including Apple’s App Store.
Because Apple is licensed under Lodsys’ patents to offer such technology to
its App Makers, the App Makers are entitled to use this technology free from
any infringement claims by Lodsys._

This is an interesting side-effect of Apple's end-to-end control of the iOS
environment. This defense may not have worked for Android as you could argue
that some of the equipment (non-google-produced handsets) does not fall under
the licensing umbrella of the company (Apple in this case).

The response should be interesting.

 _edited for clarity_

~~~
jdq
That's not Apple shooting itself in the foot. It's Apple saying "this isn't
between devs and Lodsys, it's between Apple and Lodsys".

EDIT: As pointed out by bcrescimanno, I may have misunderstood who shot
themselves in the foot. :)

~~~
bcrescimanno
I think you misunderstood; it was Lodsys shooting itself in the foot--not
apple.

------
julien_p
The full text of the letter:
[http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_l...](http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_lodsys_letter_text.html)

------
haberman
It's disappointing that the response is "we've already licensed that" rather
than "you cannot possibly believe that you really own that."

Everyone I know who is doing real work in tech agrees that patents like this
are BS. But everyone keeps playing the broken game. No one yet has had the
incentive to make a real push (like lobbying) for real patent reform. It's
still cheaper to swat the flies than it is to, I dunno, hire an exterminator?
(I've never been good at analogies)

~~~
tzs
> It's disappointing that the response is "we've already licensed that" rather
> than "you cannot possibly believe that you really own that."

How exactly would the latter proposed response actually help?

~~~
haberman
The actual response further legitimizes a broken system. It presupposes that
the patent is valid. Nontechnical people (including lawmakers) reading the
news about it will continue to have a mistaken impression in their heads that
the patent system is a functioning, productive system that technical people
are fully behind.

The proposed response would be a small step towards delegitimizing it in
people's minds. People love Apple products; if they heard from Apple that this
patent part of a deeply broken system, that would be one step on the way
towards actually getting it changed.

------
eykanal
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
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
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
Lodsys hasn't actually yet filed suit against anyone. Just sent threatening
letters.

------
smackfu
Now this whole thing has officially passed beyond the ability of the average
internet commenter to reasonably comment upon.

~~~
wmeredith
I'll take a whack ;D

A la the RIAA shakedown business model a patent troll tried to extort a bunch
of independent developers that had no chance of fighting back. Then Apple
(with their well-documented $60 billion of fuck-you money) stepped in and said
we've already paid you your protection fee-it transfers to our developers, now
please go away before this gets ugly.

I think this is pretty great. (Other than the fact that the current software
patent system encourages this sort of thing, natch)

~~~
smackfu
I'm thinking more along the lines of being able to evaluate whether Apple's
lawyers are correct or not in their conclusions.

------
eykanal
On a related note, where does this put the developers who got the letter? I
can't imagine that this letter just makes everything all hunky dory. How do
they respond now that Apple has issued a statement?

~~~
bradleyland
If Lodsys doesn't respond by retracting their letters/complaints, Apple will
likely seek an injunction, preventing Lodsys from moving ahead with third-
party lawsuits until the status of Apple's current license is determined in
court. That's going to take time, however; and there's no guarantee that a
judge will grant the injuction.

If I were a developer sitting in the hot seat, I'd feel inclined to delay as
long as possible, forcing Lodsys to fight an expensive legal battle with a
much larger opponent. Ducking service, while often unfavorable in the court's
view, would be a virtually free method of prolonging Lodsys' engagement with
indie developers, and would cost them only inconvenience.

~~~
r00fus
And that is how you win this kind of case... by out-waiting/spending the other
side.

If Apple does, in fact, gain an injunction, it almost doesn't matter what
Lodsys does, as Apple can drag their case out until it's not feasible for
Lodsys to fight any longer, or by winning/settling.

------
brudgers
[IANAL] What is clear from Apple's response is that it boils down to a dispute
regarding the limits of Apple's license of Lodsys technology. Apple claims
First Sale Doctrine - LodSys claims limited licensing. Personally, it seems
unlikely that any reasonably well drafted agreement for commercial purposes
would license a patent such that the other party could pass their rights
without limitation to additional parties at their pleasure because this would
essentially amount to a complete transfer of the IP rights to the other party
(Apple in this case).

I'll add that because appears to be a formal agreement between Apple and
Lodsys, the suits against individual developers look more like a new twist in
an ongoing dispute than the pure patent trolling which the tech press has
tended to use to describe the story (i.e. this seems more like an escalation
of an issue of which Apple was aware than an attack from out of nowhere).

Apple:
[[http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_l...](http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_lodsys_letter_text.html)]

LodSys: [[http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-i-developed-on-
apple-...](http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-i-developed-on-apple-ios-or-
other-platform-why-isnt-apple-or-other-os-vendor-responsible-or-taking-care-
of-this-issue.html)]

------
lukejduncan
I wouldn't have expected much less, but glad to see this happen.

------
sehugg
There's additional analysis at the IP Target blog:
<http://iptarget.blogspot.com/> (updated)

------
damoncali
Translation: Settle down, we'll pay you more.

