Apr 132012
 

Growing up in a 10-person household, the most fearsome words my saint of a mother would wield were “Wait until your father gets home.” It transformed in-progress shenanigans into a deafening silence. The waiting was always the worst part.

Apple uttered these words to patent trolling scum Lodsys last year. As you’ll recall, Lodsys was threatening individual iOS developers with lawsuits related to their so-called intellectual property, ostensibly so they could scare smaller entities into settling instead of entering costly litigation. Apple filed a motion to intervene in June, signaling their intent to defend their iOS ecosystem from bullshit scare tactics. Yesterday, their motion was granted.

If you’re ever lived in New York and had to deal with roaches, you know that they’re mostly silent when they scurry. If you listen closely, you can hear their tiny feet scraping the tile as they make for the nearest crack when you turn on the lights.

The lights are on, Lodsys. Daddy’s home.

Mar 282012
 

As a young man, I never owned a car, but I had several high school friends who had them gifted to them by their parents. One friend in particular had an annoying habit of using access to his car as a dealbreaker when deciding among our group of friends what a particular evening’s activities should include. His catch phrase was “if you don’t want to do x, maybe you should walk”. Coincidentally, we haven’t spoken since I was in high school.

Nokia reminds me a lot of my car dick-swinging high school friend. The issue involves what the future standard for the nano-SIM should be. Apple has a proposal, which, as you’d expect, is for a device about as small as you can make it, a design that if approved the company would license royalty-free. A consortium made up of Nokia, RIM and Motorola (three names almost synonymous with innovation) has a competing design, which one would assume it has no intention of allowing to be used without coughing up some dough to keep their dying companies afloat. The decision about which design will be approved lies in the hands of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Suffice it to say, Nokia wants their design to win out over Apple’s, claiming Cupertino’s submission “does not meet ETSI’s technical requirements and which would be inferior for consumers and the mobile industry”. Thanks for looking out for us, Nokia.

Not content to let a standards body make a decision based on the merits of the nano-SIM’s design alone, Nokia has now threatened to pull licensing from standards-essential patents it holds that “may be essential to Apple’s proposal ” if Apple’s design should be chosen.

/oblig

What a humorous little temper tantrum. First, check out the balls on Nokia in speaking for the ETSI when it claims the design “does not meet ETSI’s technical requirements.” Isn’t that the ETSI’s job? But then trying to ice a standards board by threatening to pull your FRAND patents if the ETSI votes wrong? If that was my kid, they’d be sitting in the time out chair to think about their behavior. For a year.

For Nokia’s part, they claim that “This decision has no impact on Nokia’s existing commitments to license its standard essential patents under FRAND terms to earlier adopted ETSI standards.” I wonder if the EU courts will see it that way.

Once again, we see that companies who fear Apple’s innovation have to resort to a tactic of “taking their ball and going home” if decisions made by an impartial third-party don’t go their way.

What a bunch of dicks.

Feb 162012
 

I’m a big fan of Kirby Ferguson’s “Everything is a Remix” video series, which explores how the evolution of different types  of media is actually pretty incestuous. The premise of the series is something that appeals greatly to common sense: most everything that we come to enjoy is derived, repackaged or otherwise morphed from one or more ideas that came before it. If you listen to anything on the radio nowadays or look at what’s playing at your local multiplex, you’re quickly made aware, to a nauseating degree, how little original content exists. Original ideas are hard to come by, and even harder to transform into anything of value. One could argue that in today’s society, no idea is truly original at all.

The first three installments of Ferguson’s series were hard not to like because they didn’t judge the act of taking or “borrowing” from ancestral work to make something new and sometimes better. I got a chuckle seeing all of the ways Quintin Tarantino pulled from dozens of classic films to create his work, right down to the camera angles. It seems that this unfettered sourcing of prior work could do nothing but add to the value of the original, except in the case of remakes like “The Last House on the Left”, which was horrible by any account.

The fourth (and perhaps last) installment, however, moves from the world where everyone benefits from artistic borrowing and focuses on the evolution of the system designed to protect the rights of the developer: the concept of intellectual property. He begins by pointing out that life on earth began as a single-celled organism that over billions of years spawned every living thing. By all accounts, that turned out pretty well. This used to be the case with ideas, but through a series of acts designed to make the act of creation more valuable than the act of copying, the ability to borrow has become compromised to such an extent that it’s hindering our progress. I agree with this generally, but Ferguson gets a little loose with some of the details. You probably won’t be surprised to read that the exception I take involves how Apple is depicted as using intellectual property, which he bundles together with the acts of patent trolls like Paul Allen, who uses a “suing to make a buck” philosophy to line his pockets while stymieing innovation.

He opens, as anyone who would want to lump Apple together with patent trolls, with Steve Jobs’s statement that “great artists steal”, then leaping to the Jobs quote that appeared in the Isaacson biography of Jobs wanting to go thermonuclear on Android because it was a stolen product, as if these are diametrically opposed viewpoints. I submit that the types of things “stolen” by Apple do not resemble those things “stolen” by Google. Jobs took the embryonic ideas from his (paid) tour of Xerox’s PARC research and rendered the first true consumer GUI. Google took an established, extremely successful product and swiped significant components of what made it a successful in the market. Unfortunately for Google, Apple had already been burned on the intellectual property playing field and worked meticulously to patent the parts of the iPhone (and later iPad) it felt were original. The inspiration and subsequent iteration of PARC’s ideas by Apple did not happen the same way that Google took from the iPhone, which leads me to my counterpoint: let’s look at a famous example of what happens if one cannot protect their innovations.

The history of Apple’s beef with Microsoft over the “look and feel” of the Macintosh OS is well-documented. Apple commercialized the modern desktop metaphor and Microsoft brought a very similar product to market. Apple unknowingly allowed Microsoft the legal right to do it, and I would argue that this turn of events, combined with Microsoft’s decision to license its OS to several manufacturers, led to its ascent and eventual dominance in personal computing at the expense of Apple. This inability to leverage any intellectual property framework to protect its investment almost led to the company’s demise. This is a case of the best product being pushed to the verge of obsolescence in part because they couldn’t protect their invention. Once taking back the reins at Apple, Jobs was able to radically innovate again, this time making a point to protect the company’s ideas to the greatest degree possible. His motivation was not to land lucrative licensing agreements with imitators, but to do what intellectual property was intended to do: protect the investments of the creators from hacks looking for shortcuts to success.

You can argue that intellectual property is the devil, but the fact of the matter is that its a tool. Paul Allen wants to use it to squeeze money out of its loosest interpretation without having an actual product in the real world to represent it; Apple wants to protect the stuff it makes. The “social evolution” that Ferguson speaks of in the final installment of “Everything is a Remix” is a nice concept, and the current state of intellectual property-based assaults by some parties makes the idea even more intriguing, but at its core, in a world where companies spend billions to bring their products to market and stand to lose that and more if those products are allowed to be “slavishly copied”, it’s a much more romantic than practical one. The absence of innovation protection can be as bad as its abuse.

Jan 122012
 

The Corporate Vice President for Corporate Communications at Microsoft (Redundancy Division), Frank X. Shaw, may well be the anti-Christ, but man I love it when he gets in Google’s shit. Remember when the Chief Shyster at Google started whining about the nature of patents and claimed that Redmond was “out to get” Android by teaming up with Apple, RIM, Sony and others to swipe the Nortel patents out from under them? Remember when Shaw tweeted the actual email that Google sent to Microsoft about a potential partnership that said “thanks, but no thanks“? Shaw may bear the mark of the beast, but he’s fucking hilarious.

Shaw’s latest dig refers to all the scratch Microsoft is making off of Android’s OEMs through the license agreements that all of the big manufacturers have been signing:

#occupyandroid

Redmond tipped the 70% point after signing up LG for the “extended we won’t sue your ass warranty”. The only major manufacturer not paying out to Microsoft? Hint: they duped Google into overpaying for them. Motorola gets to hide under Larry’s skirt while everyone else pays their tithe. That deal just gets better and better.

It’s a shame we don’t know how much these manufacturers are ponying up for the privilege of having Microsoft do nothing for them, but for the companies making Google’s kit, it’s as free as it is open. It has to be especially tough for suckers like HTC, which just announced that their October-to-December profits fell 41%.

So shine on, Frank X Shaw, you crazy diamond. The enemy of my enemy is…well…still my enemy. But Apple is stomping your hapless corpse in PC growth and in every category of consumer electronics where you two compete, so it’s easy to laugh at your tweets.

Jan 112012
 

I’m starting to love MG Siegler almost as much as I love Daniel Eran Dilger. His explanation of why he hates Android gives some nice historical context, and I only disagree with one clause:

Because Google sloppily decided to do the Motorola deal (driven by the full-on patent war, for which Apple and Microsoft, and not Google, are largely to blame)…

Microsoft has a nice business collecting license revenue from Android OEMs. That’s not Apple’s motivation. Apple “started” the patent war – and yes, may have escalated it, in some cases unreasonably – because Android was such a blatant rip-off of the iPhone.

Maybe it’s the use of “blame” in a sentence structure that seems to exonerate Google – I don’t know. Other than that incredibly shallow gripe, I heartily recommend it.

Dec 202011
 

As common as the articles telling Apple what to do with its cash or making out Apple users to be members of some kind of cult is the story bitching about how the company defends its intellectual property. They usually travel from “Steve Jobs said great artists steal” to “Apple’s patents have no merit” in under 500 words. These articles just stop short of abolishing the practice of defending intellectual property and the current patent system, although every other word seems to say exactly that. These hit pieces pop up every time Apple files a lawsuit, so it wasn’t shocking to see it exhumed once one of Apple’s claims actually got some traction, which happened yesterday. The International Trade Council agreed that HTC infringed on one of the 10 patents subjected to the body in 2010 for “data detectors” – the hyperlinks that allow your iPhone to recognize dates and phone numbers and forward them to the appropriate apps – and gave HTC until April 19 of 2012 to engineer a workaround before its phones face an injunction in United States.

Mat Honan’s “If Apple Wins We All Lose” is an archtype of this kind of rhetoric, and it’s no surprise that it came from Gawker Media’s Gizmodo. It’s surprisingly worse than most of the word count published on this topic, which makes it kind of fun to take apart.

Yesterday’s news that courts had ruled against HTC in favor of Apple was a tidy little victory for Apple. But HTC is just an initial skirmish in a much larger fight. The real war is against Android, and if Apple wins that, we’ll all lose.

Apocalyptic topic sentence echoing apocalyptic byline: check.

The iPhone was like nothing that came before. And Apple should be able to protect its innovations and intellectual property. But the Cupertino Crew doesn’t just want to do that; it wants to kill Android. It wants Google’s mobile OS to go away. No settlements. No licenses. Dead. Jobs said as much, very explicitly.

This philosophical “middle ground” between the ability to protect one’s intellectual property and not having a patent system has to be restated several times throughout pieces like this. It’s what I like to call the “standard disclaimer”. Even though every other word in the article is going to be a slam against both the patent system and of Apple’s claims within the system, because the author doesn’t want to come off as a (bigger) moron, he’s obligated to pay it lip service.

There are two avenues Apple can take to achieve this victory: the marketplace and the courts. I’d be all for Apple winning fair and square in the marketplace. It’s okay for consumers to decide the victor in this fight. But it’s not okay for a handful of judges and lawyers to dictate the direction of technology. For Apple to win in the marketplace—and I mean total dominance here, the kind of thermonuclear war that an apoplectic Jobs described in Walter Isaacson’s biography—it would require both innovation on a massive scale, and real price competitiveness. Realistically, that’s not going to happen. It’s already impossible, at least in the next three years. Android’s foothold with consumers is already too strong. Its phones are too inexpensive, and Google and its device manufacturing partners are too committed to Android for it to fail completely.

So the marketplace and the courts are mutually exclusive venues–the only 2 options for companies to achieve market dominance? Interesting. I always imagined the marketplace as a complex organism subject to many axes of competition, both quantitative and qualitative – price, quality, design – to name a few. Some of these axes can be protected by intellectual property law. The details of how this property is protected will always be up for debate, but you can’t make an argument that no system is better than a broken one. Apple is a company with a history of being fucked over on the intellectual property playing field. Their biggest mistake was made with Microsoft, a mistake that was exploited during the absence of their leader. That mistake factors largely into how Apple perceives the value of its IP and the lengths it is willing to go to protect it.

So that leaves the courts, where Apple keeps pressing its case—largely against device manufacturers. That’s not okay. The patent system is broken. Deeply, and profoundly so. The system that was created to foster and protect innovation, now serves to strangle it dead. Apple has real innovation. And real invention. So why act like a cheap patent troll, taking advantage of a body of under-qualified legal professionals to make decisions about which technologies consumers will be able to use? Does that bother anyone else?

Again, Apple is not responsible for how “broken” the patent system is in this country. Its only choices are:

1. To defend its intellectual property.
2. Not to defend its intellectual property.

If Apple does not defend its patents, it will forfeit future rights do so. This is common knowledge in all businesses that are can be governed by patents, and it’s certainly not “trolling”. It seems as though Honan saying that because the system is, in his opinion, broken, that Apple has no right to defend its innovations. This rhetorical masturbation has become the trademark of Gizmodo’s writing.

Granted, the iPhone was a sea change. So was the iPad. And Apple ought to be able to protect the innovations and intellectual property that set those devices apart. If Apple was only competing on iron-clad patents—if it was just forcing its competitors to think way out side of the box, that would be great for innovation. But it’s not. Apple is playing the same stupid games everyone does in the patent wars today.

Here we go again with the Apple deserves to defend property/Apple doesn’t serve to defend this property. Apple subjected 10 patents – patents that were granted by the USPTO – for consideration by the ITC. One of them was found to be infringed upon. Is Honan’s stance that none of these patents merit protection? Apparently they don’t rise to the “iron-clad” standard that is the foundation of…oh, I guess this “iron-clad” proviso doesn’t exist in any of this country’s current patent law. Could it be that Mat Honan is making up legal terms in an attempt to generate interest on a topic that has been beaten to death, resurrected and beaten to death again about 500 times?

A little bit about patents: For something to be patentable, it must be (or at least it should be) novel and non-obvious. You should not be able to find existing examples of it in prior art—in other words, when you look at the history of similar products, whatever you’re patenting needs to be unique.

I admit I laughed out loud at that. Mat Honan, obviously an officer of the USPTO, is going to educate us about patent law. Allow me to secure my bifocals and Number 2 pencil.

Now, certainly, some of Apple’s good stuff is novel. No one had ever seen anything like the iPhone prior to 2007. Yet clearly some of the things Apple is gunning to protect are, well, obvious.

Oh wait – you mean that’s it? That’s your entire lecture? Jesus and I thought I needed to go to school for this. I thought there was an entire government agency dedicated to this – one which apparently didn’t share Dr. Honan’s opinion about what’s patentable.

What Apple won the rights to in this most recent HTC case, was basically a patent on the act of recognizing patterns and acting on them—like when you tap on a phone number in an email to launch your dialer and make a call. Thing is, Google was recognizing numerical strings (including phone numbers) and tailoring search results to them long before the iPhone came out. Dating back to at least 2006 (maybe earlier) you could enter a UPS tracking code into Google, and it would parse that number, ping UPS and return tracking information at the top of the search results. It would do the same thing with phone numbers. It basically did everything the iPhone did, short of make calls. Was it non-obvious for a mobile phone to do what a search engine was doing? I don’t know. I certainly think it’s debatable, yet this is the issue that Apple just beat HTC on.

Actually, some people that know what they’re talking about when they get behind a keyboard provided a concise history of the ‘647 patent, one that predates whatever Honan thought Google was doing with UPS tracking codes. As a matter of fact, it was granted in 1999. If journalistic integrity was valued in the blogosphere, this catastrophic misstatement of fact would put a site like Gizmodo out of business. Sadly, the “durrrr Google did something like this first” smoking gun is as factual as the author gets.

Likewise, the iPad also had many novel features—like that genius subtle backside curve that makes the device so easy to pick up off a flat surface. But if you look at what Apple wants to get Samsung to drop—the bezel and the rounded corners and the rectangular shape and even the color—it’s clear that Apple wants Samsung to try to make something that goes against good design principles established well before Apple rolled out the iPad.

This is not what Apple did. It is what your site’s flametarded editor said, illustrated by flametarded Photoshops to depict Apple in the worst possible light at the expense of the facts. If you’re interested in what Apple was actually trying to do when it made recommendations to Samsung about how it could change the design of its tablet so that it didn’t infringe on the iPad, you would know that if Samsung had decided to do one thing differently, it would not be infringing. The Xyboard? Not infringing. Apple did not say “do all of these things at once”. I swear Gizmodo is trying to make the internet stupider one post at a time.

I think a lot of this can be blamed on Apple’s past history. It lost big in the courts once before. And it’s determined not to do so again. In some ways, Apple is becoming the George Wallace of technology companies. In 1958 George Wallace lost the Democratic gubernatorial primary in Alabama to his opponent John Patterson, who campaigned on a more virulently racist pro-segregation platform than Wallace had. In response, Wallace said he’d never be out-segged again. Nor was he. In 1962, Wallace stormed into the Governor’s office and national stage on a campaign of “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Apple’s Wallace moment came in 1994, when it lost a massive legal battle after the courts ruled that it could not prevent Microsoft and HP from shipping computers with graphical user interfaces that used the desktop metaphor. Apple argued that its copyrights were being violated, but the court decided Apple’s copyrights weren’t afforded patent-like protections.

This paragraph actually elicited a verbal response from me. That response was “Wow”. It’s like the entire universe of comparative anecdotes compressed into an infinitely small point and then exploded with the intensity of a billion novae. What the fuck does a racist politician’s segregation platform have to do with a company defending its IP? The best I can come up with is that Apple is supposed to be riding an unpopular practice (defending Honan’s “softer than iron-clad” IP) harder the second time it had the opportunity to do so (the iPhone) after not having the opportunity the first time (against Microsoft).

(Of course, it didn’t help that Apple wasn’t the first company to ship a computer with a graphical user interface, mouse and a desktop metaphor. That was Xerox, which had all that on its Alto. In fact, the original plan for the Macintosh business unit was written surreptitiously on a Xerox Alto during off-hours at Xerox PARC. So it goes.)

It’s curious how, after claiming to have read Steve Jobs’s biography, Honan could misstate the Xerox PARC anecdote so egregiously. Misrepresenting the PARC story is fundamental to those wishing to dismiss any claims Apple may have on its intellectual property. After all, didn’t they rip off poor Xerox?

But something changed in between the time the Macintosh was released in 1984 and when the iPhone rolled out in 2007: software patents. They weren’t widely applied until the 1990s. This happened to co-incide quite nicely with Steve Jobs’ return to Apple. And by the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, it was game on. And so, in 2007, when Steve Jobs announced the iPhone, after scoring big points with the crowd on the iPhone’s features, he did a little endzone dance for the competition, crowing that the company had patented the Bejesus out of its fancy new phone. It had learned its lesson in fighting Microsoft on copyright rather than patents, and was clearly determined to out-patent anyone else in the then-nascent smartphone market. Now we’re seeing the fruits of those patents. They’ve afforded Apple some significant victories. But if you look at the past as prologue, as Apple seems to be doing, I don’t think it’s so clear that it would ultimately be good for Apple to kill Android in the courts. And it certainly won’t help consumers.

In other words, Apple felt it had been duped and out-maneuvered by Microsoft, so it wanted to take whatever legal measures were available to defend its intellectual property with the iPhone in 2007. I guess Honan gets paid by the word. At least I hope he does.

Try this thought experiment: Imagine Apple had been successful in its suit against Microsoft. Imagine Microsoft had been prohibited from shipping Windows 2.0 or Windows 3.0—or, by God, Windows 95—without licensing the hell out of it from Apple. Where would we be? Without Windows there to pressure Apple to Build Something Better, things would be very different in Cupertino today. After it lost its case with Microsoft and saw its market share dwindle to nothing, Apple had to innovate like crazy. Had Apple won, it never would have had to transition from the System 7-era to Mac OS X. It never would have had to buy NeXT. It never would have had to bring prodigal son Steve Jobs back into the fold. Without Mac OS X, there would be no iOS. And without iOS, no iPhone, no iPad.

/takes massive bong hit

So you mean, like, intellectual property rights actually kill innovation? I mean, that’s like totally the opposite effect of what the people designing the system want it to have, maaaaaaaan! Imagine that…under my fingernails…a tiny universe might exist! Thought experiment maaaaaaan!

George Wallace used segregation as a bludgeon, quite effectively, to win elections. But today, it’s clear that he ultimately injured himself, Alabama, and the nation as a whole for very many years to come.

Keep banging that drum, Mat. I know your totally relevant recounting of an obscure southern election jammed into the mold of IP defense tactics is going to make the Harvard Business Review any day now. Or Worst Fucking Analogies Ever Quarterly. One of those two.

I’m all for seeing Apple defend its intellectual property. But Android is a healthy force in the marketplace. If Apple can destroy it there, more power to Tim Cook and company. But if Apple beats Android in the courts rather than the marketplace—if it out-segs Google instead of out-innovating it—that may be great for Apple, but it will be bad for society, bad for technology, and ultimately bad for Apple.

Third time’s a charm, I guess. You’re not for Apple defending its property, Mat. You’re for a generalized defense of intellectual property based on some criteria you don’t even define very well. But please, feel free to squawk like a racist Eric Schmidt with your “patents are the antithesis of innovation in the marketplace” horseshit.

And of course, the great irony is that so much of the amazing innovation that Apple pulled off over the past three decades can be traced back to its willingness to swipe ideas from Xerox. Steve jobs was fond of quoting Picasso, saying “good artists copy, great artists steal.” If Apple does succeed in crushing Android in the courts, where will it get its next great idea? My guess is that it won’t come from a lawyer.

So there’s your wrap-up, which touches on the mandatory “iron-clad” talking points present in any piece that slags Apple for defending its patents: a misrepresentation of the Xerox PARC story and the standard out-of-context quote from Jobs about Picasso, wrapped up with a quip about how ironic it all is.  Where will the next great piece about Apple, Android and the intellectual property landscape in this country come from? My guess is that it won’t come from Mat Honan.

Oct 142011
 

Poor Samsung. Can’t a guy knock off a few patented features of a competitor’s product anymore? Remember the salad years? Windows 3.1? Those were the days! Now they’ve got these CEOs who refuse to license their stuff and these bands of lawyers to back them up! And to make matters worse, the courts are backing them up!

This week has been particularly miserable for Sammy. Not only has the parade of preliminary injunctions grown to include Australia (in addition to Germany and the Netherlands), a federal judge in California opined that Samsung does infringe on some of Apple’s patents in the U.S. and a Dutch court ruled that Samsung couldn’t use FRAND patents to force an injunction against Apple’s products. Rough week.

“You keep him here!”

Apple doesn’t want to charge you a licensing fee, nor do they want to cross-license your bullshit, bought-from-another-company patents. Apple wants you to stop knocking off their innovation, even if your execution has been laughable. And they’ll go to the mat – and the courts – to shut you down. Maybe now they have your attention.

Aug 162011
 

If you’ve watched any Discovery Channel at all, you’re familiar with the “Serengeti takedown” at the end of a chase. The large cat has its jaws locked around the throat of the antelope as it thrashes wildly before the darkness closes in. HTC should be able to identify strongly with that image.

It’s been a pretty bad week for the Taiwanese company. They’re fresh from the news that their BFFs at Google just played them – and the rest of the suckers locked into Android as their shartphones OS – by purchasing Motorola for $12.5 billion. Apple has a shitload of patents hung on them and two of them have already been upheld by the ITC.  But HTC is not done thrashing, as a thorough search of their sock drawers has yielded yet more patents to throw at Apple. If you want to burn your eyes out through the combined effects of patent language and appaling diction, the USPTO links at MacRumors will certainly accommodate you.

Thrash all you want, HTC. It’s not going to change the ending. It never does.

Jun 102011
 

In an encouraging move for the small-shop developers being targeted by scumbag patent troll Lodsys, Apple has filed a motion to intervene on behalf of its developers. Apple is claiming that the license it currently holds should extend to the developers on its platform and it looks like they’re putting their legal muscle where their mouth is.

Developers for the Android platform, some of whom were also the target of scumbag patent troll Lodsys, have yet to hear from Google.

May 312011
 

It always restores my faith in humanity a little when I see the entirety of the tech press aligned against an entity so unquestionably malignant. Like the patent trolls at Lodsys who are trying to squeeze iOS and Android developers for the intellectual property equivalent of “the thing that lets this other thing happen”.

Not ones to let overwhelming contempt for their existence deter them, Lodsys decided to ignore the 21 day window it gave developers to respond to the original claims and filed suit against 7 developers today. “Lodsys chose to move its litigation timing to an earlier date than originally planned, in response to Apple’s threat, in order to preserve its legal options.” Translation: because Apple told us to go fuck ourselves, we’re going to try to scare individuals into settling before Apple can form a more cohesive legal strategy. Desperation is indeed a stinky cologne.

More humorously, Lodsys offered $1,000 to every developer that is the target of these suits “if it turns out that the scope of Apple’s existing license rights apply to fully license you with respect to our claim relating to your App on Apple iOS”. So that’s like, what, an hour and a half of legal counsel? And you know they’re good for it because they’d never back out of something they promised – like sticking to the 21 day response window they originally gave developers.

Tell you what guys: with present company now including a Cupertino company with $43 billion cash on hand, you’d have a better chance of hitting the lottery if you took a cup of McDonald’s coffee and dumped it in your lap. And there’s that off chance that you’ll sterilize yourselves, which we’d all feel horribly about.

And Google: anytime you want to stick your neck out for your developers, I’m sure they’d all feel a lot better about working on your platform.

  • RSS
  • Twitter