Apple's presence in the Lodsys complaints is pending court approval, but intellectual property activist Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents said he believes it's "fairly likely" that Apple will be admitted as an intervenor. In its filing, Apple asserted that its iOS developers are covered by an existing license agreement with Lodsys.
"The app developers whom Lodsys sued appear to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement (which makes sense), so they can't speak out on their current relationship with Apple," Mueller wrote in his blog on Friday. "While I don't have any confirmation from anyone that Apple has agreed to cover those defendants' costs and potential risks, it's hard to imagine how else this could work.
"In its motion, Apple states explicitly that the sued app developers 'are individuals or small entities with far fewer resources than Apple and [...] lack the technical information, ability, and incentive to adequately protect Apple's rights under its license agreement."
While developers aren't allowed to speak out on matters involving the Lodsys lawsuit, this week Apple began asking its iPhone and iPad developers about legal complications. Developers who access the iTunesConnect application management service have been asked, through a form titled "iCloud Legal Information," if they have any apps that "may have a legal issue." It has been assumed that the question pertains to the Lodsys complaints.
In May, iOS developers first began receiving legal threats from Lodsys, accusing them of patent infringement. The company has asserted that developers who utilize the in-app purchasing system Apple created for iOS software are in violation of U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078, entitled "Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network."
Lodsys later revealed that while Apple is licensed for the patent in question, the company does not believe that the agreement in place extends to iOS developers. Last month, Apple initially responded by sending a formal letter to Lodsys, asking the company to cease legal threats against developers who utilize in-app purchases.
While Lodsys initially only threatened legal action against developers, giving them 21 days to comply with their requests, the company followed through on those threats last week, and filed lawsuits against iOS developers. Lodsys is seeking 0.575 percent of U.S. revenue over the period of the notice letter to the expiration of the patent, plus applicable usage, a rate that would amount to $5,750 per year for an application that makes $1 million in annual sales, the company has said.
This week, Michigan company ForeSee Results Inc filed suit against Lodsys seeking a declaratory judgment that would invalidate four of the company's patents. It said that Lodsys has "threatened assertion" against its customers, including Adidas, Best Buy and WE Energies.
48 Comments
"Methods and Systems for Gathering INformation from Units of a Commodity Across a Network."Hmmmmm could you get anymore specific?
"Methods and Systems for Gathering INformation from Units of a Commodity Across a Network."Hmmmmm could you get anymore specific?
It's specific enough that Apple licensed it rather than litigating its validity--something that we know that Apple isn't averse to doing.
It's specific enough that Apple licensed it rather than litigating its validity--something that we know that Apple isn't averse to doing.
Except that the best information we have indicates that Apple licensed it under a blanket license that covers a large number of patents, meaning that they probably got the license for each individual patent pretty cheaply, making it not worth delving deeply into the validity of each.
In other words, you can't necessarily conclude anything about the patent's specificity or validity from the fact that it's licensed to Apple. I'm sure you know all this, so no reason to toss BS around on the forum.
Google would do the same thing for their devs, right? Right?!? (crickets chirping...)
Except that the best information we have indicates that Apple licensed it under a blanket license that covers a large number of patents, meaning that they probably got the license for each individual patent pretty cheaply, making it not worth delving deeply into the validity of each.
In other words, you can't necessarily conclude anything about the patent's specificity or validity from the fact that it's licensed to Apple. I'm sure you know all this, so no reason to toss BS around on the forum.
I just hope that this isn't a situation similar to the one where they licensed the use of overlapping windows and other System features to Microsoft many years ago for the purpose of Microsoft writing programs for Apple, but where the wording was not specific enough so that MS stole those features for Windows, and when Apple took them to court, they lost.
If that's the case with Lodsys's portion, then Apple could be in the right, but if Apple is wrong here, because of sloppy legal work, Lodsys could hold the cards.
We won't know this for a while.