
Indie iOS Devs Under Legal Fire For Offering In-App Purchases - protomyth
http://www.cultofmac.com/ios-devs-under-fire-by-patent-troll-for-offering-in-app-purchases/94916
======
pilif
Interesting. I would have guessed that they can potentially get more money out
of Apple by suing them for providing the feature. On the other hand, the
patent is probably on shaky ground so that it's more lucrative to extort the
small developers: You would get less money, but they wouldn't fight you
either.

Yeah. The patent system clearly fosters innovation and clearly doesn't need an
overhaul.

~~~
masklinn
> Interesting. I would have guessed that they can potentially get more money
> out of Apple by suing them for providing the feature. On the other hand, the
> patent is probably on shaky ground

And even if it weren't, Apple has the legal manpower and the money vault to
lawyer them into the ground.

~~~
stcredzero
_And even if it weren't, Apple has the legal manpower and the money vault to
lawyer them into the ground._

If Apple is going to play the role of "Lord of the Manor" and demand tithes
and make arbitrary rulings on what they like and don't like, then it's also
their duty to go and fight off the brigands.

~~~
masklinn
Sure, I agree and it seems they're working with those being sued.

But suing Apple's tenants and Apple itself surely does not yield the same
reaction, even if Apple has its platform's best intention in mind.

~~~
stcredzero
_But suing Apple's tenants and Apple itself surely does not yield the same
reaction_

Now we've sunk to the point where the local feudal lord only halfheartedly
protects his own interests, so long as the rocks aren't landing directly on
his keep? Same as it ever was.

(Also, look at the state of discoverability in the iTunes infrastructure. It's
the same principle, or lack of it. And, certainly, Apple is far from the only
company to be so short sighted.)

(Note, I am an avid user of Apple products and an iOS developer.)

------
brudgers
What I find interesting is that this puts Apple in a role that I don't think
it wants - going to bat in the courtroom for all those independent developers.
It's not that they don't have the resources to do so, it's just that it is
somewhat contrary to the way in which Apple has structured these relationships
through the AppStore Guidelines, i.e. Apple doesn't owe developers much of
anything except a portion of the revenue if and when Apple decides to allow
sales of their app. It will be interesting to see how Apple responds to the
attack on its vassals.

~~~
ansy
Apple does not indemnify its developers against patent claims so unless a suit
is brought against Apple directly it doesn't technically need to do anything.

This is a taste of Apple's own medicine from when it brought suit against
weaker device manufacturers instead of Google directly for Android related
patent infringement.

~~~
bilbo0s
Agreed.

Wouldn't surprise me if Google were behind it.

Apple may have lots of money, but something tells me these particular patent
trolls could get the money they need if it came down to it.

~~~
slackerIII
You think that Google, creators of an opposing app store & in-app purchases,
wants to establish legal precedent that some patent on in-app purchases is
enforceable?

------
amosson
I'm not a lawyer, so no one should take this as legal advice.

After a quick read of the iOS developer agreement, it doesn't appear that
Apple has any obligations in this matter, rather it appears that the
application developers are required to pay for the defense of Apple due to
their "(vi) [Your] use of the Apple Software or services, Your Application,
Licensed Application Information, metadata, Registered Devices, or Your
development and distribution of any Application." (See Section 11 -
Indemnification). Depending on what Apple decides to do this could get
interesting.

Apple should immediately amend their agreement to indemnify all developers
against patent lawsuits stemming the required use of their APIs. Otherwise,
some developer will cave and pay these guys off which will start a cascade of
additional lawsuits. Additionally, no one should think this is an iOS only
problem. If the patent applies to iOS in app purchases it will apply to
Android as well.

~~~
cube13
The problem is that the API doesn't violate the patent. Spyro7 linked the
patent(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2544889>), and it appears that
having a "rate me" or IAP button violates the patent. The _usage_ of the API
violates the patent, not the API itself.

This is actually worse than just iOS and Android. It applies to basically the
entire gaming industry, because any game with a "Buy DLC" button infringes on
the patent. Hell, this could apply to any program that has a "Rate this here"
button, as well.

~~~
amosson
Understood. The point I was trying to make, maybe not clearly enough, was that
Apple, wants/requires developers to use their in-app API if they want to sell
anything. Since they are forcing developer to potentially violate a patent,
they should indemnify developers. It is also in their interest to do so.

~~~
cube13
Disclosure: I am a low level C API developer, so I have a lot of self interest
in this.

The problem that I have with a blanket indemnification like this is how large
the coverage could be. Sure, you should cover cases that involve your business
model, like the app store or IAP, but what about cases that are just usage of
functionality?

Hypothetically, if the patent was over the shape of the buttons used(which
would be more of a copyright or trademark issue, admittedly), and that
changing the shape would make it not infringe, should the API owner, cover
that? Or if the API is used as an input or output for a patented algorithm,
like an audio or video codec, should that be covered? I honestly don't believe
that the API owner should cover either of those cases, because they are too
broad, and make them responsible for a LOT more cases than before.

In this case, however, I do agree that Apple, Google, and a LOT of other
companies(Valve, Sony, and MS because of gaming DLC) have a vested interest in
squashing the trolls as quickly as possible, because this patent covers a good
portion of their business models for their markets.

~~~
amosson
If they were to go broad'ish with and indemnification, it would probably have
the effect of scaring off the true trolls since they would know at some point,
they'd need to face someone with deep-pockets.

The strategy here, is to go after the smallest pocketed person you can find,
get a settlement, and then use that to go after the next. Get enough
settlements and you can you establish precedent.

------
Spyro7
I think that this is the patent in question:

[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=nA2AAAAAEBAJ&dq=7...](http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=nA2AAAAAEBAJ&dq=7,222,078)

If this is the one, then this is an unbelievably broad patent. I encourage
everyone to at least skim through this thing, it is incredible that _this_ can
constitutes a valid patent.

The way that patent system in this country works for software patents is
wrong, period. If it is this easy for someone to get sued then it should be
made easier to fight back against these type of lawsuits.

At least doctors can get medical malpractice insurance to protect against the
liability of losing a frivolous lawsuit. Software developers are on their own.

~~~
ansy
See patent liability insurance or errors and omissions insurance. Just because
people don't get it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Doctors get malpractice insurance because they need it. As soon as software
entrepreneurs need patent liability insurance everyone will have it. But we're
going to need a lot more frivolous patent suits against small developers to
make that happen.

~~~
erin2005
I encourage you to visit www.patentinsurance.com, Intellectual Property
Insurance Services Corporation.

~~~
DenisM
So it starts at $20k per year. Ouchie.

------
DeusExMachina
I use in-app purchases as well. My first thought was "being in Europe, am I
safe from this?".

AFAIK Europe does not have software patents, so I should be safe. But IANAL
and my understanding of this subject is quite poor.

Does anybody have a good answer?

~~~
whyleyc
Well one of those hit is James Thomson who is based in Glasgow, Scotland so
from the p.o.v. of the suer the answer to your question is "no".

In terms of European s/w patents, sadly according to the FSF:

"In Europe the legislation has decided that software is not patentable. But
laws are always interpreted by people, and in this case interpretations of the
law differ. So the European Patents Office (EPO) grants software patents by
declaring them as "computer implemented inventions"

Source: <http://fsfe.org/projects/swpat/swpat.en.html>

~~~
tomh-
I very much doubt he has an European patent on "in-app purchases", so my bet
is that they threaten to sue him in the US. I'm not sure if the outcome is
enforceable in Europe though.

~~~
pieter
That doesn't really matter if they can just force Apple (a US company) to pull
it from the app store.

~~~
DrJokepu
Actually, the App Store in Europe is provided by iTunes S.à r.l, a Luxembourg
(EU) company, not Apple Inc., so a US court can't really force anything to be
pulled from the App Store in Europe.

------
pieter
Anyone heard which company is actually suing them?

~~~
runjake
I have no specific information, but I suspect it's Dan Abelow
(<http://www.abelow.com>), a patent troll who runs a bunch of patent trolling
LLCs (Lodsys, Webventions, etc).

~~~
tzs
How do you know he runs Lodsys or Webventions?

Do you have any evidence he's a patent troll?

~~~
runjake
1.) I read his website.

2.) I Googled terms including "abelow", "lodsys", and "patent troll".

In other words, he plainly states he runs those businesses on the provided
links and has a history of patent trolling.

~~~
tzs
1) His website says his patents are owned by Lodsys and Webventions. I did not
see anything that said he runs those companies. What I find by Googling is
that one or both of these companies may be owned by Intellectual Ventures, or
if not owned by IV, they likely acquired their Abelow patents from IV. Abelow
seems to be at least two steps removed from both companies.

2) I see nothing in those Google searches that shows a history of patent
trolling, unless you are using a very broad definition of patent trolling (one
so broad as to be close to meaningless).

~~~
tzs
Lodsys has now verified that they acquired the Abelow patents from IV, which
acquired them from Abelow.

------
tomjen3
Hmm, if they are suing a bunch of small developers couldn't they band together
to pay for a lawyer to get the patent invalidated?

~~~
boucher
Apple will almost certainly defend these people. It would be a major setback
for their platform if they allowed these lawsuits to be lost. In fact, even
just making it to court would be a pretty major problem for them.

~~~
eamonndunne
Why on earth would you think that?

------
laujen
I added this article that John Gruber at Daring Fireball had linked to
analyzing the rock and hard place iOS developers are in with this patent
claim: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2546140>

(Disclosure: I'm one of them and potentially in violation.)

~~~
robterrell
That analysis looks wrong to me -- Adam Engst claims that the developers can't
settle with Lodsys because it would "affect Apple's rights or bind Apple in
any way". That's wrong. Lodsys isn't claiming anything against Apple's rights
-- they are claiming the developer's "buy now" button violates their patent,
and there's no reason why the developer and Lodsys can't settle this between
them, without it affecting Apple's rights or binding Apple at all.

I think it's an absolute bullshit patent and I hope everyone vigorously fights
it, but there's no reason why developers can't settle, if they feel they
should.

I'd love to see Apple indemnify developers, too, but that would probably
create as big a headache for Apple as this situation will.

~~~
laujen
I think what he is saying is that the agreement with Apple says we can't form
legal agreements that include Apple's SDK and APIs, which in app purchase is
apart of. This could or could not be covered under those mechanisms.

You might be right. The way Lodsys is going after us is for the button (or
something) that connects to the mechanism that performs the in app purchase.
Either way, as everyone else here has pointed out, it really is a sticky
widget.

------
toadkick
another interesting facet to this development:
<http://tidbits.com/article/12174>

------
FlorianMueller
I already blogged about this problem 6 weeks ago:
[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-smartphone-
paten...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-smartphone-patent-suit-
also-targets.html)

The new stories that surfaced today sounded similar, but James Thomson told me
on Twitter that it's about a different company and patent this time around.

------
DenisM
If Apple fails to protect the developers, whoever got served should take
initiative to mine through the app store for all other potential victims, and
ask for their financial support. I would certainly provide some support if I
were to be included in the resulting settlement.

------
jasongullickson
Out of curiosity, is there Google-facilitated In-App Purchase for Android
apps, or do Android devs handle this on their own?

~~~
spot
[http://developer.android.com/guide/market/billing/billing_ov...](http://developer.android.com/guide/market/billing/billing_overview.html)

------
daimyoyo
I assume that Apple's IP lawyers knew about this patent when they were
researching about in-app purchases. Morally right or wrong, why didn't they
just license it then? Patent trolls are one of the few groups of people I'd
rank beneath telemarketers on the scum of the earth scale, but they are a
known quantity and can be avoided for much less than the settlements they ask
for later. Especially for a company with a multibillion dollar IP fund like
Apple.

~~~
amosson
Don't be so sure that Apple knew about this. There is a school of though on
doing patent research before developing a product. It says do no research.
That way, if you are sued and loose, the infringement can not be views as
willful - which would treble the damages.

------
vibhavs
Waiting to see what grellas has to say about this.

------
docyes
Mobile web, it's the future...

------
startupcto
I would just send a reply letter "Fuck off"

------
ltamake
I really hope Apple does the right thing and throws this complaint out.

------
yock
If ever there were a better argument for eschewing app development in favor of
the mobile web, this must be it.

~~~
vegashacker
I disagree. I think things like "Apple can change the rules on you", "Apple
has to approve your app", "Apple makes you pay the 30%", etc are much better
arguments against it. This is just about patent trolling. It could just have
easily been a troll on some (surely hypothetical) patent for "Payment-
Accepting Web Site That Delivers Alternative Experience for Mobile Users". In
fact, an iOS dev may be in a better position than if the corresponding thing
happened to a mobile web dev, in that there's a decent chance Apple's going to
step in and smack down this nonsense.

~~~
yock
Do you mean to imply that patent trolling shouldn't affect how we develop
software? I hope you don't, because then you're suggesting that we remain at
the behest of those who set patent policy. No other way to say it, that's just
a bad plan.

~~~
vegashacker
Your first post implied to me that native apps are somehow more susceptible to
being trolled, and therefore it's safer to code for the mobile web. Is there
evidence of this trolling discrepancy? (If there is then I'm totally wrong,
but it seems to me this particular case just _happens_ to be targeted at app
developers. The next patent troll issue that makes the HN frontpage could
easily be targeted at mobile web devs.)

I feel like your more recent question is not directly related to the previous
points (so maybe I'm misunderstanding), but I'll answer anyway: no, I don't
think hackers should worry too much about patent trolls when building stuff
(or else the trolling is working and limiting creation), but I do think
hackers should make a stink when patent trolls do their thing--especially when
they do it to the little guy.

