I would think 1/10th HTC would be a wildly optimistic assessment of our
importance to Google.
On 8/10/2011 1:05 AM, Nathan wrote:
On Jul 7, 4:39 pm, "JAlexoid (Aleksandr Panzin)"
wrote:
Would you feel better if Google wrote a similar letter to Lodsys? You do
understand that that letter is just
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Chris wrote:
> I'm guessing whatever was communicated was sent 'in confidence' and by
> emanating the contents would hurt whatever case he had. Best to leave this
> question alone for a lil while.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to t
>I don't give two shits if they want to try and sue me
Me neither. x% of 0 is still zero. I love that about math.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To
PS: Nilay Patel did a little review for This Is My Next...
http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/17/lodsys-sends-ios-developers-cease-and-desist-letters-in-app-purchases-on/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group,
Yeah... My bad. It's ~%.6. Forgot the "." before 6
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
android-developers+uns
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:22:11AM -0700, Miguel Morales wrote:
> cave in, go ahead. But you're further perpetuating the situation.
Based on what I read in one of the articles from the links posted earlier
(I think it was groklaw.com, or something like that), caving in is
exactly what lodsys is
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:12:49AM -0700, John Coryat wrote:
> >> If I get that letter, I'll reply to them to kindly...
>
> I did that exactly once in my life and it took two years and a lot of pain
> and suffering (and legal bills) to get passed that one outburst. I was young
> and foolish at t
So, I have to find somebody to find a nice, legal way to say 'suck my
balls, your patent doesn't apply to my app?' Ok.
Sorry, but I'm not going to let these suit retards try to get any
money from me.
Then again, I live in a shitty apartment and the most expensive thing
I own is my do, I ride my bi
>> If I get that letter, I'll reply to them to kindly...
I did that exactly once in my life and it took two years and a lot of pain
and suffering (and legal bills) to get passed that one outburst. I was young
and foolish at the time.
Just remember, never respond to any legal letter with anythi
>> I read yesterday it wasn't 6%, its 0.575%
>From what I understand from that link, that's what they are CURRENTLY
receiving from Apple, not what they want from us as developers.
Does anyone who received "THE LETTER" have any detail as to what Lodsys is
demanding?
-John Coryat
--
You receiv
I read yesterday it wasn't 6%, its 0.575% which, principle aside, is a
paltry amount. Here's one reference:
http://9to5mac.com/2011/05/16/lodsys-were-not-patent-trolls-heres-why-were-entitled-to-royalties-over-in-app-purchasing/
- I think there's more info at Groklaw about exactly what they're
I'm curious too, where are you getting the 6% figure?
BTW: We have no way of knowing that "Google has the same license Apple has."
All we know is that Google and Apple each obtained *a* license from
Intellectual Ventures. It may be a reasonable assumption that the licenses
have similar terms, b
>> Question is: Are you ready to spend time and money battling over %6 of US
sales?
Is this what Lodsys is asking for?
-John Coryat
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@g
Question is: Are you ready to spend time and money battling over %6 of US
sales? I don't expect that you live in Texas.
And Apple hasn't really stepped in more than Google has, don't be fooled by
that letter.
BTW: Google has the same license Apple has. They both acquired the license
from Intell
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 06:59:50AM -0700, String wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2011 12:44:27 PM UTC+1, Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)
> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2011 2:04:11 PM UTC+1, Spooky wrote:
>
> PS: I just barely missed being a part of this, too, having just
> > decided not to go
>> I would respond telling them to contact google.
I wish it were that simple. I think we all know that this is a totally bogus
attempt by a blood sucking company to extort developers.
Lodsys filed a suit against some big boys today:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20076975-38/lodsys-files-s
’ll make a loss on each one and we’ll be rid of them in no
> time at all.
>
>
>
> From: android-developers@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:android-developers@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of String
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:02 AM
> To: android-developers@googlegroups.com
&g
in no
time at all.
From: android-developers@googlegroups.com
[mailto:android-developers@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of String
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:02 AM
To: android-developers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [android-developers] Re: Patent Infringement notice by Lodsys.
At
At the moment, Lodsys seems to be targeting any sort of a purchase mechanism
within an app. It started with in-app purchasing (via the API) on both iOS
and Android, but has now expanded to include upgrade links and buttons in
free apps that send the user back to the Market to buy a paid version.
What choices do we have in regard to functions, to avoid being targeted by
Lodsys? I'm within a couple of weeks for rolling out an upgrade to my main
app with in-app purchasing. The last thing I want is to get one of those
FedEx letters a month after release.
Is the Lodsys attack only against d
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011 12:44:27 PM UTC+1, Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)
wrote:
Developers should not take legal advice from the Internet, and
> especially not from a non-attorney blog or a software development
> podcast.
>
I agree wholeheartedly. I wasn't trying to give advice either, just chim
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 07:44:27AM -0400, Mark Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:48 AM, String wrote:
>
> Some sort of legal defense fund and pooled defense would seem like an
> excellent idea, but somebody with standing on this issue would need to
> talk to qualified legal counsel about
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:48 AM, String wrote:
> Or, if not,
> present a reasonable alternative to knuckling under to Lodsys' demands?
In chronological order, here is advice from some actual attorneys
(Patrick Igoe and Mark Webbink):
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110614184205441
http
I don't recall suggesting anyone retain Florian Mueller as their counsel.
But I find it difficult to refute a number of points he makes:
- Lodsys isn't afraid to sue, i.e. these aren't idle threats they're
making (note that idle != baseless).
- Legal battles, especially over patents, ar
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:15 AM, String wrote:
> I recommend that you (and all Android devs, really) read the excellent
> article
> here: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/cost-efficient-way-for-app-developers.html.
> It makes abundantly clear that it's utterly irrelevant how valid the
> infr
25 matches
Mail list logo
