@Pamx - Never said it would be cheap or risk free (my attorney has a sign on his desk, "Talk is cheap, until you hire a lawyer"), just saying to not rely on someone else who isn't an attorney (and specifically not a patent attorney).
Of course you're right. But Mr Mueller does have an impressive legal track record and does know what he's talking about. (OK - I know it's only Wikipedia...) So, personally, I'd read what he has to say first, then consult a practising attorney (or not) later.
Ok, time to take down apps from the US store because there are to many trolls with US patents. This would make Apple act faster - don't trust lengthy blogposts to much btw - sometimes this feels like there is Lodsys and this guy saying "take a license"
would you be so kind and show a screenshot of the scene in the game that contains this button which should be based on their patented "invention" ?
So anyone using a 3rd party SDK will not be covered by Apple as they are not directly using Apple's API for in-app purchasing?
This news is now all over Twitter, with links to this thread in many cases (hence record numbers viewing the forum). If Apple weren't fully aware of the problem before, they certainly must be now. However, it'll be interesting to see whether they'll wade in on behalf of developers, bearing in mind that their head patent attorney is about to leave & they're already swamped with other patent cases.
This is just one these things that make me a sad sad person, failing to realize how actions like that are possible. The other one being, the Lodsys In-App-Purchase :/ So absurd, sad and horrible in so many ways. All of these things we wanted to try out with our next game are practially "forbidden" now
I hear you. Even if the payments are low, I just don't feel like I want to line their pockets with even a penny of my money.
It's been widely suggested that IBM took out a patent-trolling patent back in 2007 (here) & that they should use it to sue Lodsys. If only...
At its peak today, around 500 pairs of eyes were looking at this thread. (There are normally around 10-20). It was our chance as game developers to be seen and heard. Unfortunately, most didn't take that opportunity. I only hope Apple (& others) don't misinterpret that lack of interest & think that they don't need to get involved.
LodOff' Have some of this Lodsys bandits!! I was going to purchase lodoff.com and make this app, instead a picture speaks a thousand lines of code
Problem is I don't see that there is anything Apple can do about this because they can only defend the extent of their licence. They should, of course, have crushed them like bugs and laughed at the remains but I think it's a bit late for that. I did just see this though - http://www.ehow.com/how_5393679_invalidate-patent.html It looks like a fair idea, but I can't help but think if it was really that simple someone would've done it by now? But assuming it works if they lash out at something sufficiently vague and an equal implementation of whatever they objected to is then dug up and submitted then wouldn't that invalidate the patent? You'd have the prior implementation that would show it predated the patent, and their threat would be confirmation that it is deemed to come under their claims. But I'm a coder of moderate intelligence, not a lawyer, YMMV, etc...
I’m actually seriously considering not finishing or releasing my game, even though it’s my passion and my testers have loved it. Because I might lose not only all my profits on it, but, just maybe, my savings and worldly possessions! Granted, I can hire a lawyer (out of my zero profits?) to protect my personal assets as much as possible from my company assets (although I have no company so far, I’m one guy). But the answer always seems to be that you’re “usually” protected by keeping the company a separate entity. Not always. The risk is reduced, in other words, not eliminated. And I’ve already got the risk of all my time/money making the game in the first place. The only answer I can see is for a non-profit organization to form that collectively defends and funds the legal expenses of indies. Make the little guys, collectively, a “big guy.” I’d consider paying into that, much like union dues. But that sounds like kind of an impractical bottomless pit... I don’t know. I do know what I’d want to do if Lodsys came after one of my games: I’d want to remove the “offending” feature even if it crippled my game, and update the game with a big button explaining that Lodsys sued my company and I was forced to lessen the game. That button would like to a web page with full details—and it might just have some ads for my other games (if any)! But even if you remove the button/feature... doesn’t Lodsys demand back-profits from the past, anyway? I feel like if I sell a game, I have to keep the money made in account, waiting to turn my passion’s rewards over to Lodsys, instead of spending it on pizza or rent. Time will tell how it all plays out. There’s no guarantee of a happy ending, but anything’s possible! P.S. Are there “offline” precedents for this kind of mass extortion by lawsuit? Like some company suing thousands of random homeowners for something, and the homeowners mostly had to pay up because proving it to be baseless would cost even more? It just seems like if this can be done with software patents, it can be done in any area. Mass lawsuits against people who can’t defend themselves—and then the merits of the suit are irrelevant: just back up a truck to collect the money!
you make it sound like they are asking for 110% of your earnings.. which they don't.. they are still trolls.. but who is to blame here thoose who "invented" such great things and now ask for a fee to use it.. or the idiots who granted that "invention" a patent in the first place.. i suggest you read the fosspatent blog.. and keep "childish" feelings out of business.. which it is everyone has entered when they offer their 99cents game for sale.. such things can always happen especialy in the usa where you become millionair by spilling hot cofee over yourself.. cheers for their way of things..and the trouble they brought over themself. as for apple.. they only intervene on things they care.. if lodsys has patents that do not directly interfer with apples potential earnings you won't see them lift a finger.. everyone who things apple is the shiny knight who comes to the rescue of the poor developer is very mistaken.. they are just here to protect their money.. not yours.. again i would like to see a screenshot of that link in epic forces game.. if someone has the game and would be so kind to make a cap that would be great.. because from the email of lodsys its all about perception.. and not facts.
It's not a question of people seeing Apple as "the shiny knight". Have you looked at the patents themselves? I would advise everyone to do so. It would have been practically impossible for developers to imagine such vague, catch-all garbage might even exist, much less understand how it might impact on their businesses. This is what the inventor had to say in a recent interview: "The concept of the Lodsys-owned patents predates the internet," Abelow told the Guardian. "The idea was that if you're sitting and holding in your hand a product and you use it, why shouldn't it be aware of your behaviour, digitally, and conduct your needs to the vendor, who could interact with you." My hope that a large corporation might intervene is due to my belief that this particular patent is ridiculous and that only such a corporation would have the funds to establish that legally. And of course, it's in their business interests to do so as goodness knows what the patent trolls will dream up next. Perhaps they'll go after developers for integrating OpenFeint or Gamecenter...
This patent seems to imply that it covers any app on a mobile device which hyperlinks to a product? So all of the shareware games/apps on a wireless laptop, which have a register button, must be infringing this bogus patent. Perhaps the patent owner also expects that website owners should pay royalties from their hyperlinked sales...but they [Snodgrass etc] would I expect say that i.e. Mozilla Firefox etc. have a licence which covers this. In that case I say that Apple's licence covers us developers for both IAP, and URLs to the App Store...not that a URL should ever need a licence to exist in the first place. In a post above I suggested to link to a dedicated website instead of directly to the App Store. But the real problem as mentioned is that indies are not in a position to fight back against the bogus claim. It might take time but one day this patent will be flushed down the toilet where it belongs...any judge can clearly see that nobody owns the Internet.
The appstore is a bubble. News like this makes me wonder how long it can go on before it gets popped and is domianted by 10 or 20 big companies leaving no room for indies. It will be a sad sad day when that happens.
i have read on it in length.. and exactly the vague "this could mean pratically anything" context of it IS the big problem, because its about perception of both parties what might or might not be covered by lodsys patent.. and of course their pov will be that their position is right and either you agree with them and go into a license agreement or you don't.. and then prepare for whatever comes into your direction.. the fact is they have patents.. they have the legal rights to pursue their rights , no matter if thoose patents are bonkers or not.. us law was never a logic system but a completly circus clownshow from what i've read so faar about some really really weird stuff.. but this does not matter. the biggest mistake someone can make is ignoring them because he thinks they are trolls.. but in all honesty i think every software patent is pointless.. but again thats not the point in this thread.. lodsys found a new defenseless spot and they will enforce this.. again they are not a small joint.. they went into court with a number of very big corporates and they would not do so if they see a good chance of earning money that way.. why should they intervene?.. if you read a bit on the foss blog you see alot of software patent issue are solved by a settlement..and the reason for this is money.. if its cheaper for a big company to pay a settlement than to go through the hole legal process that could take years and a multitude of the settlement amount.. why should they do so? just because? why should company A throw tons of money to battle such patents and possibly get it revoked at a high cost.. once they settled their problem is gone.. why should company A care about if they attack dozens other competitors out there.. would you go into a lenghty and alot more expensive lawsuite just to proove you are right and battle a complety defunct system they call "law" that ignores even the most basic logic reasoning?
