Apple is wading into the patent row between Lodsys and seven Apple application developers. Lodsys is demanding a royalty payment from developers for a patent it claims to own. The patent relates to in-app purchasing. Apple is not disputing this but insists that it has correctly licensed the patents in question and therefore app …
You got this from Mueller?
Then I'm guessing that the true story is that Apple are suing Lodsys whose customers are stepping up to defend them.
That's the beauty of Mueller: he's never, ever right about anything, so you can be sure that the opposite of what he says is the unvarnished truth. It's all about consistency, chaps.
Paying for things isn't an invention you inbred outcasts!
Why do you keep quoting Florian Muller?
If you look over FM's history of posting, you'll see that just about all he claims turns out to be completely bogus.
The man is a paid advociate. That's why he sends out so many mailings purporting to be educated opinion. And that's why so many lazy journalists just republish what he says as if it were true, rather than checking to see how many times he's been right in the past.
...why didn't I patent "buying stuff"?
Google defend its developers?
Not sure about this. I remember an atricle last year on Google's dispute with Android where Google basically said "We don't own Android. If you infringe something you're on your own, mate"
...but let's be honest they're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. A faint whiff that devs can't write apps and generate in-app revenue streams and the devs might start looking at alternate platforms for their talent, apps-stores are no good without talented people making killer apps for your platform.
Apple defending developers?
I respectfully disagree with that interpretation.
Apple is defending the ecosystem that developers have created around the "i" things. The very same ecosystem that allows to keep selling more stuff.
Developers are secondary to the real motivations.
If anyone really believes that Apple care for developers, things like the story about the WiFi synch app that was rejected on "security issues" and after that copied (icon included) should make the situation clearer.
read the article on the Beeb website, where this kid was interviewed about his app. He actually admits he didn't think it would get accepted, because he knew he was stepping in areas that were not approved by Apple. Then he goes ahead and submits it, of course it gets refused....
The icon? I believe the kid's icon is a mash up of two of Apple's icons, sufficiently different to not attract a nasty legal letter. Apple already had the sync icon and the wifi icon, put the two together and you have wifi sync. The Apple icon uses a precise combination of their current icon set.
"Will Google take similar action to protect its developers? "
Name one example of Google stepping in to legally help *anyone*.
Troll icon in honour of Lodsys.
Not only in-app-purchase
It's not only in-app-purchase; they are also going after developers who have a free "Lite" version and a paid "full" of their app, and have a button or link in the lite version that goes to the iTunes page of the full version so you can upgrade.
Arkell v. Pressdram
Should one of these trolls contact a developer the only response should be as follows:
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"
anon as at work
Saw the Lodsys website
It was very educational. Basically, all Lodsys is about is a handful of patents using which they (attempt to) get money from world + dog.
Check it out, it's a wonderful summarization of what is wrong with the current patent system. (Read the site blog for extra fun while you're at it.)
There's a glaring error in this article
Lodsys is arguing that the third-party app developers are in breach of the patent because it is *they* who are using it unlicensed. Apple are arguing two things, firstly that the licence they own does in fact cover third-parties *if* they are partners of Apple and *if* they are using the tech.
However, the second and more important thing they are arguing - as their first response letter makes very clear - is that this isn't even the case here. All the software involved in the display and processing of in-app transactions is solely the property of Apple (and is therefore covered by the licence they purchased from IV and therefore Lodsys). The third-party developers haven't touched any of the code other than to present the display of the framework in their app.
In other words, none of the front end is the third-party's, none of the backend is the third-party's and they are not involved in any way, shape or form in any of the transactions that occur as a result. Everything to do with in app purchases, other than the way it is presented in the app, is entirely Apple and is therefore, by default, properly licenced.
That *is* disputing Lodsys' argument and it is disputing it big time.