Even disabled in-app purchases still leaves you open to litigation. Lodsys is demanding their 0.575% of all transactions going forward as well as those that occurred in the past.
Obviously, 0.575% of in-app sales for a handful of high-profile apps isn't going to make Lodsys wealthy. What they really want is for Apple to buy their patent for millions of dollars to make this bad publicity go away.
Even more worrisome are the reports now that MacroSolve is extorting app developers in the same way for using forms in their applications.
In-app purchase and using forms in your application are absolutely trivial to someone skilled in the art. Unfortunately, the costs of proving this in a court are likely to be massive, especially now that Apple et. al. have essentially validated this patent by licensing it themselves. Very disappointing across the board.
As I understand it, there are two big reasons they're proposing a boycott, and neither is actually to avoid paying this fee (which most of these guys consider pretty negligible).
Firstly, they're worried about a flood of me-too suits. Immediately stopping use of the feature is sort of a poison pill intended to dissuade patent trolls, who would actually prefer that the developers continue to use the feature and continue to pay up instead of just paying back fees.
Second, Apple is a very conservative company and it takes a lot of time to get them to actually respond to anything. This boycott is intended to make Apple notice faster than they otherwise would. A lot of the boycotters are also filing bugs against the API.
> especially now that Apple et. al. have essentially validated this patent by licensing it themselves. Very disappointing across the board.
I thought that Apple picked up this licenses as part of a bulk deal with the previous holder where they bought hundreds/thousands/millions of licenses all in one place as blanket cover. It's impractical to believe that they hand-vetted each one, so it hardly sounds like validation, even in court.
"Even more worrisome are the reports now that MacroSolve is extorting app developers in the same way for using forms in their applications."
The sharks smell the blood and home in on their helpless prey. I suspect many more patent trolls will raise their ugly heads in the weeks to come: grab what you can, while you can.
The prey, in the meantime, is calculating how long they can stay profitable against the rising army of patent trolls. Maybe paying 45% to patent trolls, 30% to Apple, still leaves them with 25% of AppStore revenue for their own. That might still a viable business model to keep developing for iOS, and might pay the rent.
"Even disabled in-app purchases still leaves you open to litigation."
I can't believe no one has commented on this. How is this possibly true? Not using a patent can open one up to a litigation on a patent?? This statement makes no sense.
Unfortunately, calls to boycott are rarely successful. The defect rate is too high because of the huge incentive to defect. Also, in this specific case, the collateral damage will be the buying public. If there's one thing that consumers have proven time and time again is that ultimately, all they want is the product; they don't care about your cause. Secondly, but possibly more importantly, customers respond negatively to being used as a means to someone else's end. Developers denying customers features and updates because of a patent lawsuit boondoggle is about as far from consumers' needs & wants as it gets. This reinforces the natural incentive to defect in a boycott scenario. Not only are you emptying the market of competition, but you are endangering the customer relationship. I'll be amazed if this garners any level of participation from the iOS development community.
Time to create an "iOS Developer Foundation to Fight Patent Trolls". I will be happy to donate 1% of my revenues to such an organization who promises to fight these buggers on behalf of us.
Why limit it to iOS Developers? iOS is the current focus because that's where the market is now, but there are lots of developers who are anti-patent-troll who develop for other platforms.
It seems like what is really needed is a platform-neutral organization of developers who aren't as extreme as the FSF in terms of source-code openness but who do oppose the current patent system as applied to software. (I agree with the FSF on patents, but not on everything).
It's weird that this is being framed as a boycott. It's more like complying with patent law (even if you don't like the patent and assuming it's actually valid.)
Person B: "Hey, so what happened with your situation, where the patent holder demanded you either license it from them or discontinue use/manufacture/trade?"
Person A: "I'm now boycotting them."
Person B: "So... discontinue use/manufacture/trade."
I think the difference is that there is is an user interface item that looks like it may result in in-app purchase but actually has a message to the user about why the feature doesn't work. This is different from not using in-app purchasing at all.
I don't think Apple would approve an app with such a user interface item.
Can someone confirm for me if Apple require developers to use this API for in-app purchases? If that is the case, I really hope that they step up and do something about it soon.
I imagine Apple is furious. They paid Lodsys in good faith for a license. Hopefully now they are rewriting the API to get around the patent. Then they can tell Lodsys to go fuck themselves.
The patent is from 2007. Surely in-app phone purchases existed before.
Byt he way- the license prices in the article seems to be pointing to in app upgrades. Like from a free app to the pro version. From Lodsys' website:
"In the case of an Application doing an in-application upgrade (and only this scenario), Lodsys is seeking 0.575% of US revenue over for the period of the notice letter to the expiration of the patent, plus applicable past usage."
One way to stop trolls would be a developer owned organization that would accept patent donations, and raise funds to purchase patents. Once the organization owned enough patents it could protect developers with the "sue me and I'll sue you" defense.
It would take a while but after a few noteworthy donations some protection could be had for members of the organization.
I think it's a great idea, although obviously it would be better if Apple just stepped up themselves (saw rumors that was likely / in progress).
But as I noted in the comments on RWW they're going beyond in-app purchases and targeting at least one company that's got no in-app purchases and is doing the pretty standard free/paid combo.
IMHO: wrong strategy. Tweaking your app for every patent that a troll throws at you leaves you vulnerable forever.
a) I hope Apple does something globally to protect the iOS ecosystem;
b) I think software patents need to be reformed (I'm not sure they need to be eliminated, maybe they do / maybe they don't, that's another discussion).
I'm not familiar with the legal nuances. Does buying licensed music through iTunes Music Store count as "in-app purchase" which would be in effect, prior art, thereby violating the patent?
Why would Apple ever get in the way? Just so they don't lose the 0.002% of their revenues? Wont that also be a PR disaster for them? (Apple the elephant going after the tiny patent holder).
Face it guys, whether it's Apple taking your 30% or Facebook (who also takes 30%) or Google (who also takes 30%) or anyone, indie developers are always left on their own and herded like sheep.
[+] [-] Construct|15 years ago|reply
Obviously, 0.575% of in-app sales for a handful of high-profile apps isn't going to make Lodsys wealthy. What they really want is for Apple to buy their patent for millions of dollars to make this bad publicity go away.
Even more worrisome are the reports now that MacroSolve is extorting app developers in the same way for using forms in their applications.
In-app purchase and using forms in your application are absolutely trivial to someone skilled in the art. Unfortunately, the costs of proving this in a court are likely to be massive, especially now that Apple et. al. have essentially validated this patent by licensing it themselves. Very disappointing across the board.
[+] [-] chc|15 years ago|reply
Firstly, they're worried about a flood of me-too suits. Immediately stopping use of the feature is sort of a poison pill intended to dissuade patent trolls, who would actually prefer that the developers continue to use the feature and continue to pay up instead of just paying back fees.
Second, Apple is a very conservative company and it takes a lot of time to get them to actually respond to anything. This boycott is intended to make Apple notice faster than they otherwise would. A lot of the boycotters are also filing bugs against the API.
[+] [-] awj|15 years ago|reply
I thought that Apple picked up this licenses as part of a bulk deal with the previous holder where they bought hundreds/thousands/millions of licenses all in one place as blanket cover. It's impractical to believe that they hand-vetted each one, so it hardly sounds like validation, even in court.
[+] [-] Luyt|15 years ago|reply
The sharks smell the blood and home in on their helpless prey. I suspect many more patent trolls will raise their ugly heads in the weeks to come: grab what you can, while you can.
The prey, in the meantime, is calculating how long they can stay profitable against the rising army of patent trolls. Maybe paying 45% to patent trolls, 30% to Apple, still leaves them with 25% of AppStore revenue for their own. That might still a viable business model to keep developing for iOS, and might pay the rent.
[+] [-] dkl|15 years ago|reply
I can't believe no one has commented on this. How is this possibly true? Not using a patent can open one up to a litigation on a patent?? This statement makes no sense.
[+] [-] bradleyland|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nhangen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RyanKearney|15 years ago|reply
Sent from my iPhone
[+] [-] jarsj|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgemcbay|15 years ago|reply
It seems like what is really needed is a platform-neutral organization of developers who aren't as extreme as the FSF in terms of source-code openness but who do oppose the current patent system as applied to software. (I agree with the FSF on patents, but not on everything).
[+] [-] robterrell|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carussell|15 years ago|reply
Person B: "Hey, so what happened with your situation, where the patent holder demanded you either license it from them or discontinue use/manufacture/trade?" Person A: "I'm now boycotting them." Person B: "So... discontinue use/manufacture/trade."
[+] [-] adolph|15 years ago|reply
I don't think Apple would approve an app with such a user interface item.
[+] [-] Incubus|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhimes|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanisinallofus|15 years ago|reply
The patent is from 2007. Surely in-app phone purchases existed before.
Byt he way- the license prices in the article seems to be pointing to in app upgrades. Like from a free app to the pro version. From Lodsys' website:
"In the case of an Application doing an in-application upgrade (and only this scenario), Lodsys is seeking 0.575% of US revenue over for the period of the notice letter to the expiration of the patent, plus applicable past usage."
[+] [-] ryanisinallofus|15 years ago|reply
It would take a while but after a few noteworthy donations some protection could be had for members of the organization.
[+] [-] zuppy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benologist|15 years ago|reply
But as I noted in the comments on RWW they're going beyond in-app purchases and targeting at least one company that's got no in-app purchases and is doing the pretty standard free/paid combo.
[+] [-] chicagobob|15 years ago|reply
a) I hope Apple does something globally to protect the iOS ecosystem;
b) I think software patents need to be reformed (I'm not sure they need to be eliminated, maybe they do / maybe they don't, that's another discussion).
[+] [-] brisance|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ignifero|15 years ago|reply
Face it guys, whether it's Apple taking your 30% or Facebook (who also takes 30%) or Google (who also takes 30%) or anyone, indie developers are always left on their own and herded like sheep.
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|15 years ago|reply