Join 3,523 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


A load of sys
May 23, 2011 12:54 PM   Subscribe

Apple says app developers are covered under license, Lodsys' patent infringement claims are invalid Macworld has more.
posted by device55 (75 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
So, does this count as indemnity?
posted by Artw at 12:59 PM on May 23, 2011


This is (among many reasons) why software patents are a bad idea, although Apple promotes them and actively goes out and sues people over them. One example would be coverflow, which apple patented and sued people over, except it turned out it had actually already been patented by someone else years prior.

Unlike a physical device, which could require lots of testing and tons of work to bring to market, software is barely more then the expression of an idea, an idea that lots of people will probably come up with independently anyway. I mean, obviously the idea of selling software addons inside of other programs isn't a novel idea. Nor is tagging regions in photos (which facebook just got a patent for)
posted by delmoi at 12:59 PM on May 23, 2011 [8 favorites]


And Apple is almost certainly right here. Apple's already licensed Lodsys' patents.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:59 PM on May 23, 2011


My bad, it was all over the news recently. I didn't think about it.

Here's a run down http://www.macworld.com/article/159868/2011/05/ios_developers_threats_legal_action_in_app_purchasing.html

Lodsys is a patent holder who started sending letters to iOS developers demanding they license their vague patent with regard to in-app purchase.
posted by device55 at 1:03 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


Lodsys are patent trolls who are claiming they own the concept of in-app purchases, but have been suing individual iOS developers who use Apple's in-app purchase framework instead of suing Apple because they figure individuals will settle more easily.
posted by ook at 1:07 PM on May 23, 2011


Some background: Lodsys vs. Apple Devs: EFF helps us dig deeper
posted by Artw at 1:09 PM on May 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


Lodsys has a patent on In-App purchases (and are really just patent trolls), and a few weeks ago was targeting iOS app developers claiming they had infringed on their patents.

But Apple App developers are already licensed users of the Lodsys' patent, because Apple's license for the technology (which predates the lawsuit apparently) includes a clause that lets them provide the technology to their business partners. Since you have to enter into a legal agreement with and pay money to Apple in order to publish an App, you become a business partner.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:10 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


For some background, Lodsys is a parasite, trying to strong-arm Apple developers into paying extra if their app uses in-app updates, even though Apple already licensed the technology for their API.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:12 PM on May 23, 2011


Interestingly enough, developers using other homebrew mechanisms for in-app purchase to work around the 30% Apple surcharge would not have been covered.
posted by verb at 1:13 PM on May 23, 2011


I'm not too up on what's what in the software world, but how is this not tortious interference, especially if a developer jumps ship from Apple and decides to just develop for the Android? It seems that going after the developer's was a monumentally stupid thing.
posted by geoff. at 1:16 PM on May 23, 2011


It seems that going after the developer's was a monumentally stupid thing.

It also seems like they didn't read own license to Apple - also monumentally stupid.

Maybe they were hoping for a payday before Apple noticed?
posted by device55 at 1:17 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


It seems that going after the developer's was a monumentally stupid thing.

Greed can do that a person.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:18 PM on May 23, 2011


I wouldn't be surprised if Google or its cell phone vendors paid Lodsys to pull this stunt. I hope Apple ultimately files suit, if only to see what the discovery phase shows.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:19 PM on May 23, 2011


err developers without the possessive ...
posted by geoff. at 1:19 PM on May 23, 2011


If only Plastic.com wasn't holding that patent over the edit feature!
posted by geoff. at 1:19 PM on May 23, 2011 [8 favorites]


Some background: Lodsys vs. Apple Devs: EFF helps us dig deeper

Wow, that was even more misinformed than the usual EFF self-promotional rubbish. Like for example:

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staff attorney Julie Samuels says that Apple legal is likely hard at work reviewing the patent in question,

What perspicacity, what sagacity.

.. devs will also be able to turn to EFF for advice, where they may even be paired with pro bono patent attorneys..

..who will lose your case, setting an unbreakable legal precedent. You get what you pay for.

When are people going to start getting a clue, that the EFF is funded by telecom megacorps and consistently fights for their masters' corporate "freedom" to exploit the internet, rather than fight on behalf of individuals?
posted by charlie don't surf at 1:21 PM on May 23, 2011


Interestingly enough, developers using other homebrew mechanisms for in-app purchase to work around the 30% Apple surcharge would not have been covered.

Though it would violate Apple's App Store terms and conditions quite clearly. As of some months ago, Apple would not approve any apps that use non-App Store content purchase mechanisms (I think some like Kindle are grandfathered in), meaning that anyone doing so would find their audience reduced to the minority of jailbreakers.
posted by acb at 1:21 PM on May 23, 2011


I wouldn't be surprised if Google or its cell phone vendors paid Lodsys to pull this stunt. I hope Apple ultimately files suit, if only to see what the discovery phase shows.

Do you have any solid reason for suggesting Google's involvement? I ask because according to the Lodsys blog Google also have a license with Lodsys for their in-app purchases. Looks to me more like Android developers would have been next on Lodsys's mailing list.
posted by jonnyploy at 1:28 PM on May 23, 2011 [8 favorites]


Apple sure did sit on it for a while, which suggests that there was enough doubt to require a thorough review - though if they really are indemnifying developers it means it's purely between Apple and Lodsus now, and I wouldn't want to be lodsys.

Maybe they'll just fuck off and bother some other platform.
posted by Artw at 1:30 PM on May 23, 2011


I wouldn't be surprised if Google or its cell phone vendors paid Lodsys to pull this stunt.

When are people going to start getting a clue, that the EFF is funded by telecom megacorps and consistently fights for their masters' corporate "freedom" to exploit the internet, rather than fight on behalf of individuals?

Man, these conspiracy theories are so boring. Throw in some more exciting stuff like the Trilateral Commission, Freemasons or Timecube please.
posted by kmz at 1:31 PM on May 23, 2011 [5 favorites]


> I think some like Kindle are grandfathered in

Kindle App doesn't actually have an in-app purchase system, you have to buy the books via amazon.com or similar (the Amazon.com app, for example), which was the deal with an entirely different terms of service fight a few weeks ago. Apple said you can only provide paid for downloadable content in your App if it was purchased through the App store, and for the same price as if you bought it outside the app (so you had to eat the 30% take Apple got).

I wouldn't be surprised if this came about as part of Apple cleaning house as it reviewd it's Lodsys patent, realizing that if it allowed for Apps on the AppStore that violated the Lodsys license, it would damage their ability to defend their use of it (ie, Apple has to enforce their license rights among their business partners, or else they may lose their license entirely, and using Apple's In-App purchase mechanism was probably a criteria for being covered).
posted by mrzarquon at 1:32 PM on May 23, 2011


Apple sure did sit on it for a while

It's only been a week and a half - I can't imagine their legal team wanted anyone shooting their mouth off in the press before they re-double checked everything and authored a clear message.
posted by device55 at 1:34 PM on May 23, 2011


> Apple sure did sit on it for a while

You mean "10 days" is sitting on it for a while? Considering that the developers were sent physical letters two Fridays ago, means Apple had just five business days to get their hands on those documents to review for themselves (Lodsys did not send a copy to Apple), and then review their contracts, create a statement, have that statement proofed by legal, and then ready to hit PR?

Yeah, Apple sure did sit on this and took their sweet time.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:35 PM on May 23, 2011 [6 favorites]


Apple sure did sit on it for a while

I know. Blogger journalists were on this hot story the moment it broke.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:39 PM on May 23, 2011


In this modern news cycle, 10 days is an eternity.
posted by smackfu at 1:43 PM on May 23, 2011


Google paid me to consider that a period of time that might alarm some developers.
posted by Artw at 1:55 PM on May 23, 2011


Google paid me to consider that a period of time that might alarm some developers.

Facebook paid me to quote this comment.
posted by device55 at 1:56 PM on May 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


Do you have any solid reason for suggesting Google's involvement? I ask because according to the Lodsys blog Google also have a license with Lodsys for their in-app purchases. Looks to me more like Android developers would have been next on Lodsys's mailing list.
Just paranoia and a seething hatred anyone who competes with apple...
posted by delmoi at 1:58 PM on May 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


My workplace paid me to make this comment.
posted by kmz at 1:58 PM on May 23, 2011 [8 favorites]


Just paranoia and a seething hatred anyone who competes with apple...

What a load of kern panics.

Lodsys was cowering behind its boot loader, pinching and zooming as Apple burst through the door. The Big A had no choice but to doubleclick.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:03 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


Further analysis at the IP Target blog.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:04 PM on May 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


Do you have any solid reason for suggesting Google's involvement?

Well, for one, they don't play fair:

How Google controls Android: digging deep into the Skyhook filings

Fundamentally, this entire case is about whether Google uses Android compatibility testing to manipulate OEMs like Motorola and Samsung. And this email from Google’s Dan Morrill seems to indicate that Google does exactly that: he says that it’s “obvious to the OEMs that we are using compatibility as a club to make them do what we want.”...

By June 25th Google had realized any additional paper trail about Skyhook was unwise due to the pending lawsuit — a Googler named Alex Medina was instructed to “thread-kill” an email chain about an unnamed third Android OEM using Skyhook and take the discussion off-line.


It's a pretty well-documented non-conspiracy. A detailed read, from start to finish.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to this Lodsys story than we're seeing so far.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:05 PM on May 23, 2011


I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to this Lodsys story than we're seeing so far.

Impossible, everyone knows Lodsys has had kidney problems for years.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:08 PM on May 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


What a load of kern panics.

Lodsys was cowering behind its boot loader, pinching and zooming as Apple burst through the door. The Big A had no choice but to doubleclick.


Bruce Sterling?

Is that you?
posted by verb at 2:08 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


How Google controls Android: digging deep into the Skyhook filings

From manipulating their own mobile platform to hiring a stooge to make trouble with a competitor's is somewhat of a leap, wouldn't you say?
posted by acb at 2:10 PM on May 23, 2011


From manipulating their own mobile platform to hiring a stooge to make trouble with a competitor's is somewhat of a leap, wouldn't you say?

Well, the legal filings instead suggest they manipulated hardware vendors (Samsung, Motorola) in order to make trouble for a competitor (Skyhook). In that light, it is perhaps not as much of a leap.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:13 PM on May 23, 2011


Well, for one, they don't play fair:

How Google controls Android: digging deep into the Skyhook filings


I still don't see how you get from "Google doing some other dodgy stuff that had nothing to do with Apple" to "Google paid a third party to fuck with Apple developers". Or, on preview, what acb said.
posted by jonnyploy at 2:15 PM on May 23, 2011


Anyway, that Skyhook review was an interesting read. I definitely recommend checking it out.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:15 PM on May 23, 2011


Anyway, that Skyhook review was an interesting read. I definitely recommend checking it out.

On it.
posted by jonnyploy at 2:16 PM on May 23, 2011


Well, the legal filings instead suggest they manipulated hardware vendors (Samsung, Motorola) in order to make trouble for a competitor (Skyhook). In that light, it is perhaps not as much of a leap.

No, it's still a pretty random leap. Based on the fact that Google once screwed over a company, you are proposing that Google attempted to screw over another company even though they are in the same position as that company. (ie, both Google and Apple license the in-app purchase mechanism.) It's rather like someone arguing that Apple, having once purchased Claris, is about to purchase Adobe. The evidence? Well, they've purchased software companies before...

The Skyhook story is definitely interesting, and like the new "Whoops, rooted android phones will be locked out of our new movie app" it sucks some wind out of the 'open android' arguments, but it's still something of a conspiracy theory derail in this thread unless there's something to go on.
posted by verb at 2:17 PM on May 23, 2011 [2 favorites]



Some context wouldn't kill you. Who or what is Lodsys? What are these patent infringement claims? Why should I click through to these articles?

Well yeah, then you can take part in the thread. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
posted by the noob at 2:19 PM on May 23, 2011


Unlike a physical device, which could require lots of testing and tons of work to bring to market, software is barely more then the expression of an idea, an idea that lots of people will probably come up with independently anyway. I mean, obviously the idea of selling software addons inside of other programs isn't a novel idea. Nor is tagging regions in photos (which facebook just got a patent for)

You don't get patents on a physical devices by doing testing and bringing anything to market. You just have to write a patent application, include some drawings, and file it.

And everything is an expression of an idea. An automatic transmission can be drawn on paper, right? So why should that be patentable, but a more more complex piece of software, with many many more inputs, much more processing and manipulation of them not be?

We are so used to manipulating the virtual that manipulating something physical in the actual real world strikes us as black magic.

You don't get patents on an idea, especially ideas as glibly stated as the ones that are always raised when patents come up on the internet. Your Facebook phototagging patent? Here what is actually patented:
1. A method comprising:
receiving from a device of a first user a selection of an item of digital media, wherein the item of digital media is stored in a database;
receiving from the device of the first user an identification of a person associated with the selected item of digital media;
responsive to receiving the information identifying the person, sending a notification to a device of a second user that the person has been identified in connection with the item of digital media; and
enabling the identified person to reject the identification, wherein the identified user is different from the first user.
That's what is patented. That's is precisely what Facebook has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, etc. Someone has to be doing all those things to infringe this patent. Name one entity who was doing the boldfaced parts before 2006.

I propose a new rule on Metafilter: you want to bitch about a patent, include a link to it.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:19 PM on May 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


When I wrote "Someone has to be doing all those things to infringe this patent" I meant that they have to be doing everything in the blockquoted passage (i.e. patent claim 1). They obviously don't have to do all of make, use, sell, etc.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:20 PM on May 23, 2011


It's a pretty well-documented non-conspiracy. A detailed read, from start to finish.
Yeah, it's a non conspiracy. So what does it have to do with accusations that google is engaging in a conspiracy?

Google says you have to do X, Y and Z in order to be "Android compatible". So what? You need to follow certain practices to use the Linux trademark as well. Handset makers could still use android on their phones and do whatever they wanted, they just wouldn't be able to market them as android phones, which is certainly more then other phone makers could do with iOS.

On the other hand, Apple has been engaging in exactly what lodsys has been doing with it's patents, not just threatening suits but actually suing handset makers that use android over some of the UI features.

So frankly, Apple doesn't even have a moral highround over lodsys here


----
And everything is an expression of an idea. An automatic transmission can be drawn on paper, right?
It's true that you can file a patent on any idea that pops into your head. But in terms of physical devices, ones that have never been built or tested are probably not going to be worth much. Real products require a lot of refinement and testing, and creating them takes a lot of work. With most software, that's not really the case.

But here's the thing. While it's true that an automatic transmission can be drawn on paper or represented as a 3D model, that 3D model wouldn't violate the patent. It's true that anything can be represented mathematically, but with a real device a pure mathematical representation wouldn't violate the patent. With software, the representation and the thing are the same.
That's is precisely what Facebook has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, etc. Someone has to be doing all those things to infringe this patent. Name one entity who was doing the boldfaced parts before 2006.
First of all, it's obvious. It would be obvious to anyone that if you allowed people to tag photos with other people, those other people might like to be notified. Secondly it's more of a 'business model' patent, not a 'real' software patent involving complex mathematics like the MP3 codec or something like that. There's no "machine or transformation" involved. You're not even creating a new algorithm, it's something that could be done with a simple SQL query.
posted by delmoi at 2:56 PM on May 23, 2011 [3 favorites]


I wouldn't be surprised if Google or its cell phone vendors paid Lodsys to pull this stunt. I hope Apple ultimately files suit, if only to see what the discovery phase shows.

Come ON now. I wonder who would drag Google into a thread about Appl---

Oh.
posted by JHarris at 2:56 PM on May 23, 2011 [15 favorites]


In fact, if on-paper representations of devices violated the patents on devices, then the patents themselves would violate themselves.
posted by delmoi at 2:58 PM on May 23, 2011


charlie don't surf: When are people going to start getting a clue, that the EFF is funded by telecom megacorps and consistently fights for their masters' corporate "freedom" to exploit the internet, rather than fight on behalf of individuals?

~~ THE TROLLIEST TROLL OF ALL ~~
posted by JHarris at 3:02 PM on May 23, 2011 [4 favorites]


Apple sure did sit on it for a while, which suggests that there was enough doubt to require a thorough review - though if they really are indemnifying developers it means it's purely between Apple and Lodsus now, and I wouldn't want to be lodsys.
posted by Artw


Seven business days? That's sitting on it for a while? In the world of legal responses that's as close to immediate as you can get.
posted by justgary at 3:14 PM on May 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


Unlike a physical device, which could require lots of testing and tons of work to bring to market, software is barely more then the expression of an idea...

I don't like software patents, but no, software does sometimes require tons of testing and tons of work, and there is quite a bit involved in expressing an idea in a working form.
posted by ignignokt at 3:16 PM on May 23, 2011 [3 favorites]


In this modern news cycle, 10 days is an eternity.

In the legal cycle though, it's an eyeblink.

Some context wouldn't kill you. Who or what is Lodsys? What are these patent infringement claims? Why should I click through to these articles?

Well yeah, then you can take part in the thread. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?


The post was poorly formed. Aside from the confusing typo (missing period?), there's no context at all. I had no idea what it was about until I read the article. That's essentially mystery meat.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:20 PM on May 23, 2011


All I know is, if this hinders the development of iPad games for cats, I'm agin' it.
posted by Trurl at 3:33 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm a bit disappointed by Apple's response. It's good that they're standing up for app developers. But the letter doesn't challenge Lodsys' patent at all, doesn't question its legitimacy or applicability. If anything it bolsters the patent, since Apple themselves licensed it and have now written a letter saying "good thing we licensed this patent". It makes perfect sense for them, but it's not the challenge to the inanity of software patents I'd like to see.

As for Google, it seems fairly likely to me that Lodsys will come after Android developers soon. Do we know if Google has a license from Lodsys?
posted by Nelson at 3:50 PM on May 23, 2011


software does sometimes require tons of testing and tons of work

That's true for large software systems, but not true for the 'patentable' parts. How much testing would it require to come up with a tagging system like facebooks? It could be prototyped in a couple hours.
posted by delmoi at 3:52 PM on May 23, 2011


It's good that they're standing up for app developers. But the letter doesn't challenge Lodsys' patent at all, doesn't question its legitimacy or applicability. If anything it bolsters the paten
Of course, that's what they want. They want everyone to use their payment system and they don't want anyone else to do it. Unlike most software companies who just sit on their patents for defensive reasons, Apple actually goes out and sues people over them.
posted by delmoi at 3:53 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


> If anything it bolsters the patent, since Apple themselves licensed it and have now written a letter saying "good thing we licensed this patent". It makes perfect sense for them, but it's not the challenge to the inanity of software patents I'd like to see.

Apple isn't in the fight to obliterate software patents. They are a company who wants to make money. I don't expect them to do any more, and by protecting their app developers, they ensure that their in-app revenue (30% of all sales) will continue.

> As for Google, it seems fairly likely to me that Lodsys will come after Android developers soon. Do we know if Google has a license from Lodsys?

Google has a license from Lodsys as well. It is not clear if Google's license is the same as Apple's, or if because the Android market is open to all, the developers can justify falling under the same umbrella of protection that Apple can justify with it's paid / walled garden model. That is unless there are similar contracts associated with using Google's In-App purchase system. However, since anyone can put an App on the Android Marketplace, there are probably plenty of Apps that have In-App purchase options that use non licensed methods, and as such, would be the next subject of lawsuits.

If you are developing an App with In-App purchasing through Apple, Apple considers you having a valid license agreement and will probably go to court with Lodsys over this (otherwise, the license Apple bought from them is not being respected).

If you are developing an App with In-App purchasing on the Android Marketplace, you are now in a grey area. If you using Google's provided service, do you fall under a similar umbrella as Apple's license? Or if you are developing your own In-App mechanism or using a third party, do they have a license or the lawyers to deal with Lodsys?
posted by mrzarquon at 4:03 PM on May 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


If anything it bolsters the patent, since Apple themselves licensed it and have now written a letter saying "good thing we licensed this patent". It makes perfect sense for them, but it's not the challenge to the inanity of software patents I'd like to see.

Well, yeah. There aren't really any successful technology companies in the ecosystem at this point that are willing to challenge the concept of software patents. There are individuals, there are commentators, there are engineers... But I'm not aware of any companies that aren't part of the problem. I'd be happy to be wrong, but it seems to be a Mutually Assured Destruction sort of environment.
posted by verb at 4:09 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, it's a non conspiracy.

Yeah, sorry, I thought the pull quote about Google taking their anti-competitive plans off an email paper trail made it clear I was trying to be ironic about the "non-conspiracy" bit. Basically, management getting Google's Medina to pull the email thread is essentially evidence of two or more people conspiring to conspire. It's well documented and pretty damning stuff, delmoi. You should read it, seriously.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:30 PM on May 23, 2011


Google paid me to consider that a period of time that might alarm some developers.

Facebook paid me to quote this comment.


Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Sorry, I'm late to the party.
posted by autopilot at 4:39 PM on May 23, 2011


You don't get patents on an idea, especially ideas as glibly stated as the ones that are always raised when patents come up on the internet.

Not in theory, but you can bring lawsuits on an idea.

The patent is for some kind of user feedback system that never should have passed the 'obvious' test.

The suit is over in-app purchases.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:45 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


~~ THE TROLLIEST TROLL OF ALL ~~

Let's look at the alleged EFF offer to possibly, maybe offer assistance to developers to fight Lodsys. What happens if they win?

Cui bono?

Apple.
posted by charlie don't surf at 5:10 PM on May 23, 2011


You should read it, seriously.

I just read the whole thing carefully. I do see that it backs up the assertion Google may be willing to throw its weight around to control where products using Android go and gets fussy about certain features in its stack being provided by third parties. It doesn't back up the pretty reachy assertion that Google is likely to be paying patent trolls to pick on iOS app developers, which makes this line of discussion a pretty big in-thread derail.
posted by weston at 6:04 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


If you were going to make a random accusation that EVIL COMPETITOR COMPANY must be behind this, and back that up with RANDOM SUPPOSED MISDEED then it would probably be a better fit to blame _Microsoft_ due to their _backing of SCO_ - that would at least fit a little better, conceptually, though it would still be arbitrary garbage with no basis in reality.
posted by Artw at 6:34 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


Musical chairs, Artw. Google is the new Microsoft, Apple is the new Linux, and Microsoft is the new Apple.
posted by hattifattener at 8:34 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


So what is linux? (besides "free" and "you get what you pay for")
posted by mrzarquon at 8:38 PM on May 23, 2011


Batman would actually be a more interesting superhero if he would deal directly with patent trolls and corrupt bankers. Violently.
posted by mecran01 at 9:17 PM on May 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


Man, these conspiracy theories are so boring. Throw in some more exciting stuff like the Trilateral Commission, Freemasons or Timecube please.

Oh man, best troll idea ever.

File a patent on a new method of generating random "alternative news narratives" through semantic analysis of news articles. Maybe throw in a few random 23s and 666s into the patent. Give your company a suitably vague but shadowy name. Global Information Management, Inc., etc.

Then start targeting random Internet conspiracy theorists claiming they are infringing on the patent.
posted by formless at 11:45 PM on May 23, 2011 [3 favorites]


Why does this thread reference conspiracy theories about Google without direct evidence? Is this what we've come to?

Patent trolls suck. Keep your fingers to yourself.
posted by asymptotic at 12:11 AM on May 24, 2011


(My bad, conspiracy theories and direct evidence are oxymoronic. How could one exist with the other? I really should never post without my morning coffee in my bloodstream).
posted by asymptotic at 12:13 AM on May 24, 2011


Cui bono? Apple.

So what the fuck do we care? If Apple is in the right then by god let them be right!
posted by JHarris at 3:26 AM on May 24, 2011


MacRumors: Lodsys Also Targeting Android Developers with Patent Infringement Claims. Man, Google's anti-Apple conspiracy goes deep.
posted by Nelson at 11:20 AM on May 27, 2011


Wheels within wheels.
posted by Artw at 11:42 AM on May 27, 2011


Lodsys contends it's license terms are different what Apple thinks. Looks like this may have been a lobbying maneuver resulting from talks between Apple and Lodsys breaking down.

It sounds like Apple may have taken longer to solidify their argument prior to making a statement, as it was using it as a weighted move against Lodsys in a PR move. Lodsys may have been trying to get Apple to pay them a per useage license for each developer, Apple said no, they already were covered under their existing license, so then Lodsys went after the developers (or that is my conjecture anyway).
posted by mrzarquon at 10:55 PM on May 31, 2011


The $1000 thing is just bizarre.
posted by Artw at 11:16 PM on May 31, 2011


Apple files motion to intervene in Lodsys patent lawsuit - Good on 'em, I say.
posted by Artw at 9:02 AM on June 10, 2011


New York Times, OpinionLab sue Lodsys seeking declaratory judgement
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on June 14, 2011


« Older Green With Envy is a new movie starring Amy Adams ...  |  “According to Leanne Payne’s 1... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments