Apple Tells Lodsys Patent Troll to Back Off

On my Mac this page pops up a big full-page ad for some kind of "Clean My Mac!" software. I'm invited to press a "Try it Now" button.<p>If this is legit software it is marketed by someone who doesn't mind that their ad looks and smells exactly like a trojan.<p>[EDIT: Or, as suggested below, someone has exploited a JS vulnerability.]<p>EDIT: Modding up the "Macworld" link below.<p>[MORE EDIT: Removed suggestion that this thing might be malware; I'm choosing to trust the research of my fellow HN reader, below, who claims it is legit. Thanks for taking the time.]

Wow, talk about shooting yourself (Lodsys) in the foot -<p><i>As above, in the notice letters we have seen, Lodsys uses screenshots that expressly identify the App Store as the entity that purportedly collects and manages the results of these user interactions at a central location.<p>Thus, the technology that is targeted in your notice letters is technology that Apple is expressly licensed under the Lodsys patents to offer to Apple’s App Makers. These licensed products and services enable Apple’s App Makers to communicate with end users through the use of Apple’s own licensed hardware, software, APIs, memory, servers, and interfaces, including Apple’s App Store. Because Apple is licensed under Lodsys’ patents to offer such technology to its App Makers, the App Makers are entitled to use this technology free from any infringement claims by Lodsys.</i><p>This is an interesting side-effect of Apple's end-to-end control of the iOS environment. This defense may not have worked for Android as you could argue that some of the equipment (non-google-produced handsets) does not fall under the licensing umbrella of the company (Apple in this case).<p>The response should be interesting.<p><i>edited for clarity</i>

The full text of the letter: <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_lodsys_letter_text.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_l...</a>

It's disappointing that the response is "we've already licensed that" rather than "you cannot possibly believe that you really own that."<p>Everyone I know who is doing real work in tech agrees that patents like this are BS. But everyone keeps playing the broken game. No one yet has had the incentive to make a real push (like lobbying) for real patent reform. It's still cheaper to swat the flies than it is to, I dunno, hire an exterminator? (I've never been good at analogies)

Don't forget, though, that this is unlikely to be the end. Lodsys clearly disagrees with this, given that they sent the letters to the developers, and will probably take Apple to court over whether the license applies to the app makers or not.

Now this whole thing has officially passed beyond the ability of the average internet commenter to reasonably comment upon.

On a related note, where does this put the developers who got the letter? I can't imagine that this letter just makes everything all hunky dory. How do they respond now that Apple has issued a statement?

[IANAL] What is clear from Apple's response is that it boils down to a dispute regarding the limits of Apple's license of Lodsys technology. Apple claims First Sale Doctrine - LodSys claims limited licensing. Personally, it seems unlikely that any reasonably well drafted agreement for commercial purposes would license a patent such that the other party could pass their rights without limitation to additional parties at their pleasure because this would essentially amount to a complete transfer of the IP rights to the other party (Apple in this case).<p>I'll add that because appears to be a formal agreement between Apple and Lodsys, the suits against individual developers look more like a new twist in an ongoing dispute than the pure patent trolling which the tech press has tended to use to describe the story (i.e. this seems more like an escalation of an issue of which Apple was aware than an attack from out of nowhere).<p>Apple: [<a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_lodsys_letter_text.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_l...</a>]<p>LodSys: [<a href="http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-i-developed-on-apple-ios-or-other-platform-why-isnt-apple-or-other-os-vendor-responsible-or-taking-care-of-this-issue.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-i-developed-on-apple-...</a>]

I wouldn't have expected much less, but glad to see this happen.

There's additional analysis at the IP Target blog: <a href="http://iptarget.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://iptarget.blogspot.com/</a> (updated)

Translation: Settle down, we'll pay you more.