Lodsys responds to targeted iOS developers

Seriously, I hope somebody steps up and tears this patent and these Lodsys a-holes to pieces. I mean, talk about a novel idea. Prior art? Umm, how about, oh, I don't know ... the internet? Or all those 1980s BBSs. AOL. Prodigy. Hell, even QuickMail (remember that?). All of those systems are described in this patent and all of them existed well before 1992.

Holy crap. Did anybody even try reading the patent itself? No wonder it took them a few years to even figure out that somebody was doing something that might be infringing on their patent. (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7222078.html)

Some gems from trying to skim this giant wall of text:

It even goes on to vaguely describe a computer that the system might run on including that it may or may not be using DRAM or SRAM, may or may not have an ASCII display, or this lovely snippet about how it might have a keypad:

"The keypad (148) may contain sufficient keys for all letters and numbers, or a reduced set. It also contains function keys that provide specific programmed operations"...

The best part I saw was how it is described as a combination of these six specifically listed things:
1) Market Research.
2) On-Line Surveys.
3) Field Programable Logic Devices.
4) Hand-held Bar Code Readers.
5) The calculator.
6) Smart cards.

@James Cude:

The price is not evidence. Patent royalties are always set at a low level, especially with an enabling patent such as this that is only a tiny part of the final product. The licensor's aim is for the licensee's business to prosper, not collapse. As a comparison: I sell an application that uses a lot of other people's copyright material (as well as some of our own) and the licensors actually take care to ask us for figures so they can ensure that the total royalties we pay to all licensors combined do not add up to more than 10%.

The strategy they are using is not evidence either. You never deal with a patent infringement by suing. You always start by putting the [potential] infringer on notice and inviting him to license your invention. That is standard practice with patents. Apart from making practical sense, it has a legal value. From the day I send you a notice and you receive it, you become liable for royalties. I may, as part of the negotiation, try to get you to pay me royalties for past usage as well, but they are not mine as of right in the same way that future royalties are. So I can set up a simple strategy: I send out lots of notice letters to everyone, which triggers liability for royalties, wait to see how their sales develop, and then decide which ones are the richest and the most worth leaning on.

Preferably not by suing. On the scale we're talking about, everyone loses by litigation and the aim of both sides is to avoid it. If you claim $5750 from me for my $1m sales last year, and I refuse, you probably won't bother suing. Even more so if you claim $57.50 from my $10,000 sales.

I know that some people have a principled objection to intellectual property being bought and sold at all. They have nothing to fear from the Lodsys patent because they have no need for its technology, since its only purpose is to provide a way in which [a developer's] intellectual property can be bought and sold.

The problematic and onerous cases are:

1. When you don't know the price of a patented technology and are too scared to find out in case the patent owner throws the book at you and puts you out of business.

2. When the owners want to use a patent as a weapon, but this is mostly big-company-vs-big-company stuff.

3. When they decide to refuse to license at all or do so only under unacceptable conditions. In the field of copyright there are many cases like this. For instance, the web version of our app is missing certain content because the copyright holders refuse to allow it on the public Web.

4. When the only licensing model they offer is one that doesn't fit at all. For instance: per-copy royalties for something that you want to give away free without even counting the copies, or demanding a flat $20,000 fee before they'll even talk to you. Neither of these appears to be the case here.

The bizarre features of this case are bizarre features of the US patent system, which allows priority from the date the vaguest of patents is filed rather than from the time that a full and precise patent is filed and published. But that is another matter.

"So either Apple didn't license things properly, or the onus is really on developers to come to terms with Lodsys. It's fair enough for Lodsys to offer licensing, although I have to say their attitude in the Q&A is very defensive. At times (the remark about "pixie dust" in particular) they sound as if third party licensing isn't even possible -- which is ridiculous. Of course it is. Apparently Apple either didn't do it or there's been a misunderstanding."

Or Lodsys is full of crap.

Funny how THAT option didn't occur to anyone. because it's always Apple's fault.

"Considering Apple only sells a handful of apps to begin with, and of those apps I'm not aware of any that offer in-app purchases (let alone a "lite" version),"

Would you not consider iBooks a case in point?

Hopefully apple will step forward and protect the feeders of there Eco system and crush this stupid claim

If Lodsys had actually developed the technology that allowed an app to do in-app purchasing... if they provided infrastructure... if they provided support... if they had done ANYTHING AT ALL to deserve the money, then fine. Perhaps they deserve a cut.

But all Lodsys did was license the "right" to enforce a patent on an obvious idea that -- as near as I can tell -- was never even implemented by its "inventor". (Wasn't owning nothing but the "right to sue" recently torn down in the court?)

Lodsys created nothing. They have no competing "product" that's being damaged. They are not being harmed in the marketplace... they're not even IN the marketplace.

They are, however, a parasite ON the marketplace, seeking to extort money from the developers who create products that people like and actually want to purchase.

Those people worked hard and created value. Lodsys creates nothing, provides nothing, and as such, deserves nothing.

Other than to be eliminated.

Such is the fate of the parasite...

I suspect part of the reason why they're being so defensive is that the CEO is getting death threats (well, allegedly anyhow, though judging from comments here and elsewhere I wouldn't be too surprised if it were true). I'd be a little peevish through if half my inbox was filled with messages question my parentage and threatening to burn down my house.

"It would, however, apply to all third-party developers like those getting notices last week."

Huh? What's up with the reading comprehension?

"At times (the remark about "pixie dust" in particular) they sound as if third party licensing isn't even possible -- which is ridiculous. Of course it is. "

They don't just sound that way, they state it very clearly: such agreements (those that would cover an entire ecosystem) are not being provided.

Not sure why you seem to think Apple "didn't license things properly" or "didn't do it."

BS- they are not entitled to a penny! This is just low-hanging, patent troll fruit. If they had such an open/shut case they'd a.) be asking for a lot more, b.) not having to look so amateurish by arguing their case on a blog. They'd be patiently waiting for their day in court.

And they'd just be suing. Anyone who 'threatens' a lawsuit instead of just filing one knows they have a weak case and is relying on the fear of a lawsuit to get them over the hump. Stand strong iOS devs- you will be vindicated.

The bottom line is 0.575% of your revenue, in the simplest case. It's worth remembering that.