A small more than a week after iOS developers werethreatened with effectual actionby a company that hold various patent , Apple ’s effectual section has struck back .
On May 13 , many iOS developers reported receiving FedEx packages containing athreat that they risked letters patent - violation lawsuitsif they did n’t pay Lodsys to certify a patent cover in - app buying and other app - relate matters .
In a letter sent Monday ( learn the full text of the letter here ) to patent - bearer Lodsys and its CEO Mark Small , Apple says its existing licence for patents cover in - app purchase applies to all iOS app makers as well .
The crux of Apple ’s alphabetic character , from older vice president and ecumenical counsel Bruce Sewell , is right in its initiative paragraph , which reads in part : “ Apple is undisputedly licensed to these patents and the Apple App Makers are protected by that license . There is no ground for Lodsys ’ infringement allegations against Apple ’s App Makers . In addition to stating that Apple would partake the letter with developers — which it has — the company also say that it “ is fully prepared to champion Apple ’s license right . ”
Though it runs for three pages , Sewell could have end his alphabetic character there . Lodsys has already publicly state that Apple certify its patents ; the companies agree on that . Apple ’s tilt , which runs counter to Lodsys ’s previously published view , is that Apple ’s license covers iOS developers , too .
Under its licence , Apple is ennoble to offer these commissioned product and services to its customer and business organization collaborator , who , in turn , have the right to employ them .
But that ’s not Sewell ’s only point ; his argument is threefold : Apple ’s license to the Lodsys patents covers iOS developers , andthe alleged patent misdemeanor is n’t really occurring anyway . By elbow room of example , Sewell cites Lodsys ’s title regarding alleged violations of its U.S. Patent No . 7,222,078 , which Apple enunciate “ covers two - fashion interaction with the user and elicits user feedback . ” Sewell write :
Under your reading of the claim as set out in your letters , the allegedly infringe turn require the use of Apple APIs to offer two - way communication , the transmission of an Apple ID and other services to permit approach for the drug user to the App store , and the use of Apple ’s ironware , iOS , and server .
In other words : These developers are n’t contravene Lodsys ’s letters patent , because they ’re using Apple software and computer hardware to provide the functionality that Lodsys alleged needed licensing . Apple ’s percentage point is that , since the engineering is Apple ’s , Apple ’s permit is sufficient . Sewell create the same point again regarding another say case of infringement :
Claim 1 also arrogate a memory that store the results of the user fundamental interaction and a communication chemical element to carry those results to a key location . Once again , Apple provide , under the infringement theories set out in your varsity letter , the physical memory board in which user feedback is store and , just as importantly , the genus Apis that allow transmission of that user feedback to and from the App Store , over an Apple waiter , using Apple hardware and software . Indeed , in the notification letter of the alphabet to App Makers that we have been privy to , Lodsys itself relies on screenshots of the App Store to supposedly conform to this title element .
Apple ’s argument is thus jolly straightforward . The company licence its use of the Lodsys patents , and the developers that Lodsys aver infringe those patent in fact leverage Apple ’s licensing , since any behaviors covered by the patents are really drive by Apple ’s technology , and not the developers ’ .
Citing theQuanta Computer , Inc. v. LG Electronics , Inc.2008 Supreme Court lawsuit , Sewell write that :
… because [ the hash out ] Apple ware and services , under the reading articulated in your letter , entirely or well embody each of Lodsys ’s patents , Lodsys ’s threaten claim are barred by the doctrines of letters patent enfeeblement and first sales event … Therefore , Apple requests that Lodsys immediately crawfish out all notice letters sent to Apple App Makers and quit its imitation assertions that the App Makers ’ enjoyment of licensed Apple products and services in any way constitute violation of any Lodsys patent of invention .
Developers react
Developer reaction to the news was swift . TLA Systems developer James Thomson , who broke the story when he received a letter from Lodsys , show a feeling of great relief .
“ I am extremely relieved that Apple has stood up for its developers against these plainly unfair claims by Lodsys , ” Thomson toldMacworld . “ I always believed they would , but it ’s a huge weight off my shoulder to see it write in inglorious and white . The last ten sidereal day have been some of the most stressful of my professional life history , and I ’d just like to say thanks to Apple and all our customers and admirer who have been extremely supportive of us during this clip . ”
Ken Landau , the President of MobileAge and another receiver of Lodsys ’s sound threat , toldMacworldthat Apple ’s letter is “ real right for us developer … I ’m really very felicitous . Apple did the right thing . ”
“ I ’ve never seen iOS developers so excited about the walled garden , ” Red Sweater Software ’s Daniel Jalkutwrote on Twitter .
“ I should pen to Steve Jobs more often,”tweetedIconfactory developer Craig Hockenberry . sooner in the day Hockenberryposted an open alphabetic character to Steve Jobson his blog where he referred to party like Lodsys as “ greedy predators . ”
[ update several times on 5/23 to add developer chemical reaction and more analysis of the varsity letter . Macworld editorial director Jason Snell contributed to this reputation . ]
