Notable iOS Developer Suggests API Boycott to Fight Patent Trolls | Hacker News Reader

Notable iOS Developer Suggests API Boycott to Fight Patent Trolls

readwriteweb.com

68 pointsbond31 comments

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.

> 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.

Apple, Google and MS licensed the same patent when it was with IV its now with asshole patent troll..asshole patent troll is claiming that license does not cover 3rd party developers who make use of an api from Apple, Google, or MS.

Brings into question the utility of bothering to do business with IV, doesn't it?

"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.

Most apps who are able to make anything at all average somewhere around $4000-7000 in sales for the lifetime of their app. I can attest to that firsthand. Even at 70% it is not a viable business model for most (except for the <1% who are fortunate enough to make a lot of money in the app store). If every damned patent troll comes out of the woodwork claiming their share, then it will even be less worthwhile than it is now.

"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.

I believe the idea is that you profited from using the patented technology in the past, so you still owe Lodsys a cut of past sales.

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.

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.

As an iOS developer, I want to know why Apple has not addressed this yet? Seriously.

You're using the API wrong.

Sent from my iPhone

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).

Dude, I am already donating 30% percent of my revenues to an organization that should be doing that.

No, that organization has other interests to protect while this one would be democratic and transparent. I am serious guys.

I applaud your seriousness. But I don't want to spend the time on it. I would rather develop software in an ecosystem that is protected from such crap. If it ends up being Microsoft's, or Google's, or HP's, then so be it.

This is a threat to Apple's profits (directly, through lost app sales, and indirectly, by driving developers away from the platform). Can't imagine that Apple has other interests more important to protect.

Also, I think the 1% fund would be consumed by the first lawsuit. I don't know about Lodsys, but often patent trolls keep attorneys on staff, so they're not burning billable hours, while your legal team is. They can make us burn through our fund very quickly.

No, this is Apple's fight -- and if Apple won't fight it, the platform is doomed anyway, because all of the patent trolls will smell blood in the water.

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.

There's no proof that Apple paid Lodsys for this patent. It's almost certain that they have a licence for it from a previous deal with IV who was the previous owner of this and many many other patents. Lodsys can't sue Apple so they're trying to do so indirectly by threatening the ecosystem.

You're probably right, and what's more, it's likely they didn't license this patent specifically, but rather it was included in a family of patents for which they negotiated a license fee.

http://goo.gl/4vRWy

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.

You can't do that against a company that doesn't build anything (as in the regular patent troll).

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.

It wouldn't play that way in court of public opinion. It's not too hard to recognize Lodsys as a leech on productive companies like Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com