As a attorny mentioned these lodsys letters with their bubbles descriptins are not enough legaly for infringment notices. They must cite the whole patent description. I would spent some cash and talk to a lawyer
How on earth can anyone patent the ability advertise your other products. How stupid is the system that would allow such a thing. I'm going to patent the advertising of your website or product on any marketing material or object capable of displaying such material. I should make a fortune if I can word it airy fairy enough as I will be able to target tv makers, computer makers, magazines and newspapers, estate agents... Pretty much anyone who wants to make money in any way. Looking forward to being declared the worlds richest man who ever lived in the next couple of years. Bloody ridiculous system. Mike
thnx epic first of all this is all NOT legal advice (get an lawyer) but only my personal point of view and perception of things the first thing i would be asking is them how they define "two way local interaction" based on that i would argue that there is any interaction happening here because you do not, are not even able to track what happens after a user pressed on your html links, because pressing such a link would close your app and lead to external actions on the device you have no control direct control over. aswell as you are not storing any information on the button press on any central location.. you are merely linking to the an website url which may or may not open seperate installed application on computers (itunes) or mobile devices (itunes/appstore) or just show an html page you linked too.. there is also no upgrade process going on since you merely show your product portfolio in this case to a completly different product, which is NOT!!!! an upgrade both your lite and your full are two seperate products from what i see offered at different prices and there is no functionality to upgrade here.. if you buy the "lite" app you can buy the "full" app but this no upgrade to the "lite" app, since both applications are two completly seperate commodities and buying one or the other has no impact on one or the other. so after an user pressed an html link in your application from within your static non interactive product catalogue there is no "two way" interaction happening but a one-way causal effect html button closes your app, then opens safari application, which loads an html page, which triggers then to open itunes application, which then would open the appstore application. if thoose applications are not installed the link would only lead to an html page with information about your product your application has not 2way communication with either safari application, itunes application or appstore application.. the last is where the actual 2 way interaction and storage happens.. not in your application each applications runs in an independant sandbox with very limited communication abilities and your application is technically not! able for a two way communication and/or central data storage of any kind in this matter which are related to buying a seperate application you merely offered an html link to the only two way interaction happens in the appstore which is an application by apple and not buy yourself.. this is imho a total different case than IAP purcahse since the purchase within an app is an two way interaction , where as simple html link is not a 2 way interaction but a causal single way interaction, which closes your application immediatly after the link is actived.. one other important factor is imho that you cannot track or check what happens after the link is pressed, you can't know what the user does after that point since its not a 2 way interaction in your application but in another one which you have no access too.. so you cannot "elicit user perception information" in any way in this case for an upgrade, since its no upgrade in the first place either and does NOT happen in your app but outside and since its an causal single way interaction you cannot even track how much sales you gather through that html link.. so how are you even supposed to enter into a license contract if no one knows the numbers?! *shrug* makes no sense and looks rather like an wrongly targeted product because their perception is wrong and there is a big difference between this and IAP - end of my uneducated blurb btw i just notice that i already own ifighter.. then it rang a bell wtf thoose are the guys who make the cool arcade shooters.. where super laser (silly name) was the one with the lock on functionality..
@mr.Ugly: yes, I actually replied to the first letter from Lodsys and explained that there's no "two way" communication here in iFighter. Then I got the email from Mr.Harry Snodgrass in my original post, with his interpretation of the patent: The section below explained the infringement, it's absolutely not an upgrade nor IAP, but according to Mr. Snodgrass, they owned the patent But you have a very good point here: "you can't know what the user does after that point". There is no way I can track how many actual sales generated by the button, how can I engage in a licence agreement with them?
This same logic could be applied to a buy full version button, which is just a link to the Appstore. There is NO way to track what people do after they touch the link. Your post makes perfect sense to me, but I guess we have to spend nearly 365$ dollars an hour for a lawyer to tell me that. sighhhh...
Figuring out the basis of the alleged infringement is the relatively easy part. Fighting it in court is the challenge. Once a notice is received you should definitely seek legal advice but you can save yourself money by doing as much research as you can yourself. (Don't dump piles of paper on your lawyer though - you'll be charged for their time ploughing through it). You should also keep an eye on how those suing/seeking declarations against Lodsys are doing as, if they are successful, it will be very helpful to your case. If only court was like on tv where you just state the obvious & the other side's case collapses.
Are we really the vendor? As far as I know Apple is selling the product, I m not a vendor. Can't we consider that Apple is paying us royalties on our product? JC
Devs should create a Pool and Share the lawyers cost if they are in the same country. Devs outside US may ignore the letters which is risky but the troll can,t sue evrybody since to sue means invest $$ unsure if they get the cash back. For IAPs looks like Apple takes care...for cross promo u are on your own
I live outside US and will be ignoring such letter when I hyperlink. If some fool wants me to visit their local court then please send 1st class travel...oh and passport fees as I don't have one. I could do with a holiday, thanks.
There is a simple solution to this whole lodsys issue. Just leave out all the IAP, Hyperlinks, Upgrades, Adware, Bloatware and all the useless crap and just release a full game and a lite version with one level etc.. Honestly if someone is going to buy your game they already know of your reputation from awesome sites like this one and youtube videos etc..
The only flaw in your plan is the International trade commision. Lodsys might already hold international patents also... not sure
Apple already opposed Lodsys. They are backing up their devs. You might read Apple's last letter to Lodsys. http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_lodsys_letter_text.html The last news were that Apple asked the court to get involved in this stuff. http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/06/22/lodsys-asks-court-for-two-month-delay-to-answer-apples-motion-to-intervene/
At first I thought lodsys were this illegitimate company trying to make headlines, I didn't realize that Apple actually licensed their obscure patent. They have a small chance of getting some sort of "deal" with apple (which is probably their goal anyway) and this whole chasing of Indie developers is just to stir things up.
That was in relation to IAP which, as I understand it, is different to the situation under discussion. Apple have not committed to assisting with this cross-promotion problem.
You may have missed Lodsys' response to Apple. They proceeded with suing the developers ahead of schedule because of Apple's involvement. http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/lodsys-responds-to-apple-files-lawsuits-against-app-developers/ They even went as far as offering $1000 to every developer they sue if they end up being wrong about their patent. See their blog here: http://www.lodsys.com/blog.html
I really can't see this latest 'patent' holding any water at all, ESP in a UK patent office. I dealt with the UKPO once...invented an advanced wind turbine, sent my drawings to them, and then forgot about the idea...I just wanted prior art to exist for the future...I consider my invention public domain, it will never be monopolised (when a material is strong enough to build it). So I am very passionate about fighting these fools who invent nothing at all.
It's better that they are chasing rich companies. They have expensive lawyers and a better chance of taking Lodsys down.
The developer is not collecting information or feedback from the end user. Developers don't know who bought their apps, or where they found the app in the first place. If a person clicks on a link to another app on the store, that information is NOT being gathered and sent to the developer. Developers get a royalty payment only, and don't know where that money came from. Maybe everyone bought the second game by searching the App Store and not the links from another app. We just don't know. Therefore we should not be sued by Lodsys for gathering feedback or a perception when there is none.
