∞ Developers remove apps from US store, fearing patent lawsuits

Written by

Charles Arthur writing for The Guardian:

App developers are withdrawing their products for sale from the US versions of Apple’s App Store and Google’s Android Market for fear of being sued by companies which own software patents – just as a Mumbai-based company has made a wide-ranging claim against Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and a number of other companies over Twitter-style feeds, for which it claims it has applied for a patent.

I think people and companies should be able to protect their ideas, but some of these patents are just crazy. I’m not sure what the solution is, but something has to be done.


  • http://www.bynkii.com/ John C. Welch

    well, for one, pulling apps won’t help you not get sued. That’s a silly concept. What needs to happen is for devs to you know, band together, then lawyer AND lobbyist up. Defend against trolls, and get the laws changed. 

    or they can sit and cry.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001578926066 Coward Anonim

    Software should not be patentable at all. It is like getting patent on 2+2=4. Implementations in software are already copyrighted, so they are protected.

    • Gustav

      Really, so you don’t think Google’s search algorithms have any value. Being able to search through petabytes of data to return relevant searches in less than a second is obvious and should be freely copyable by anyone?

      What about face detection, audio analysis, or even compression algorithms that took years and years to research and develop? There’s no value worth protecting there?

      Is all software just grunt work to you and not worth protecting?

      No, software should be patentable.

      The problem is those in the patent office that judge what is worthy of a patent are not experts in the field. They have no basis to judge what is valuable and what isn’t. That’s where the fix must lie.

  • Gustav

    Here’s what’s needed to fix the invalid patents in the system:
    1. A defendant being sued for patent infringement can request the patent be reviewed by a panel of experts for validity before going to trial, and no expense to the defendant.
    2. If the patent is determined to be valid, the case can proceed to determine if the defendant actually infringed on the patent. The loser of the case pays for the aforementioned patent review in additions to any judgment stemming from the case itself.
    3. If the patent was determined to be invalid, the case is dismissed. No penalties are given.

    This is fair for little guys and big guys. It thwarts patent trolls, and it deters defendants from asking for a patent review automatically. And if they push it, well, the guilty party pays.

    In the future, patents should be examined by a panel of experts to determine validity, not a guy in the patent office.

  • http://twitter.com/Hallingip Dale Halling

    Due Diligence

    Here is the question that never seems to get asked any more:
    Did the apps developers even do a preliminary patent clearance search? It easy
    for people who are computer literate to do a quick search of the patent
    database with today’s tools to see if they are likely to infringe any patents.

    If you were going to build a garage, a shed, a building,
    etc., you would first undertake a simple search to determine if I owned the
    land on which this structure was going to be built. This is just basic common
    sense. Why do we constantly excuse patent infringers for failing to do the
    simplest due diligence before they undertake building their products? A simple
    clearance search makes good business sense. It ensures that the company is not
    reinventing the wheel, it is good competitive market information, and it makes
    sure that you are not going to be sued for building on someone else’s property.
    Patent clearance searches are just good, basic business practices that too many
    lazy businesses fail to perform.

    In addition, the actual license fees being asked are very
    small according to what I have heard.