A few thoughts:<p>1. Nothing in the letter commits Apple to defend the developers or to hold them harmless. Legally, Apple does not have to do this. One can only hope that its self-interest in protecting its app-store ecosystem will be enough to cause it to do what is right. For now, Apple is saying only that it will fully defend its "license rights." One can read more into this than is stated but that is all that is stated (of course, Apple's throwing its weight behind developers even at this level is no small thing).<p>2. The letter does not quote the license agreement in any way. Normally, if there is something definitive in such a document, it is put front and center in a letter of this type. This could mean that the license language is not as definitive as the tone of this letter might suggest. Only time, and a detailed review of the license language itself, will tell on this point.<p>3. It is plain that Apple wants to do the right thing for its developers. Yet the situation is trickier than that. As of now, Apple has no legal obligation to defend or hold them harmless, and that step is an order of magnitude greater than that of saying it will merely defend its license rights - and hence the hedging in the letter.<p>If the goal of the patent system is to promote innovation, then this case is Exhibit A for how it is failing. Thousands of patents are gathered up in a portfolio held by an IV affiliate and licensed in bulk ("monetized") to big players such as Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc., who in turn believe that they have clear rights to build systems around them. But the patents are "monetized" again to lesser players with shadowy relations to the original IV group, who in their turn try to "monetize" them further by attempting to double-dip with the original licensees based on limitations in the original licensing language. At each step, threats of lawsuits abound and nowhere can one find even one example of a patent developed by a company for its own innovative uses. Instead, we have the equivalent of shadowy trafficking in intangibles that are now being used, not to encourage innovation, but to attack the very developers who are <i>trying</i> to innovate. Positively Kafkaesque.
><i>Apple is undisputedly licensed to these patent and the Apple App Makers are protected by that license.</i><p>That's a <i>very</i> good thing to hear. And extremely definitive. I'd imagine devs are breathing a lot easier now.
The letter itself doesn't do much for the legal defense of app developers vs Lodsys, it is only Apple's opinion and Apple wasn't the one being threatened, but it does show that Apple plans on throwing its weight around to defend the app makers. And that is all we really need, becuase I sincerly doubt Lodsys really wants a full on legal battle with one of the most cash rich companies in the world.
><i>"Lodsys’s threatened claims are barred by the doctrines of patent exhaustion and first sale. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[t]he authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder’s rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article."</i><p>I find it interesting to see Apple invoke the First Sale Doctrine given the restrictions which it places upon its hardware (e.g. iPhone).
I heard Marco Arment at a 5by5 Show also saying it's easier to pay 0.5% instead of going into a long and expensive trial.<p>I believe it's not necessarily a troll patent issue that Marco was talking about, this is what trolls are meant to do, anyway; I think it's an issue with the law itself and its enforcement.<p>Could you believe this some 40 years ago: "I'm going to pay this parasite tax just because I cannot be protected by anybody"? Try "associate with" instead of "protected by"!
“[t]he authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder’s rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article.” Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008).<p>In plain English: because Apple bought the patent from Lodsys, Lodsys cannot ask for any benefit that might be related to the patent. Period.
If Microsoft pays a patent holder for the licence to use a patent for microtransaction purchases within the windows operating system, and someone writes a windows app that utilizes the method, under this argument is it the same as long as Microsoft controls the transaction (ie we payed once, and it applies to our app makers)?
> The amount of skill that you have in a certain area is proportional to the amount of work that you put into it. There is no such thing as a 'creative' or 'technical' type. The reason I was bad at art starting out is the same reason we are bad at anything starting out. One day, I sat down and put in hours of serious work, refusing to stop until I liked the results. And, gradually, I got better at art.<p>I tell my son there is no such thing as talent, just understanding. This keeps the As coming in, dude is awesome
Its good to see Apple make stand for its App store developers, but where's the iFlameThrower? This looks a bit too nice a response for the petty shakedown run lodsys tried to pull off. Oh well... I guess <i>Apple</i> does not have to speak loudly to be heard.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say some of this looks awfully convenient, and maybe even well timed, for Apple.<p>"See, the 30% we charge you isn't so bad after all, is it?"
So basically, Apple fully supports software patents so long as it benefits them. When another company wants money for a BS patent, it's a travesty. You gotta love the way business works.