Showing posts with label MacroSolve. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MacroSolve. Show all posts

Thursday, July 7, 2011

App developers targeted by trolls are given irresponsibly risky advice

It's bad enough to see the likes of Lodsys and (even worse) MacroSolve shake down little, economically defenseless, app developers. But it's even worse to see some launch misguided initiatives and/or give ill-conceived advice to app developers. I urgently caution all app developers against signing up on a website like DevelopersAgainstPatents.org unless you know beforehand that

  • there's very substantial funding behind such an effort (in this case, all that's known about the website is that it was started by an open source developer named Larry E. Masters aka "PhpNut", who's probably a well-meaning activist; there isn't even an "About us" section on the website itself);

  • there's blanket coverage for those participating in such an effort including potentially high damages awards; and

  • you deal with a very reputable organization that will treat your information confidentially, given the risks involved (again, I guess Larry Masters means well, but I don't know him).

Note that blanket coverage is a big issue here. It's not enough to just fund a declaratory judgment action. If you file a "DJ" against a Lodsys or MacroSolve, you can set your watch by them because by the time they file their defenses to it, they will make counterclaims and say that you do infringe the patents. They will do that even if Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle jointly fund your effort. They will assert infringement. And what if the court agrees with them? Then you've provoked a litigation that you probably could have avoided (by signing a license agreement), and that litigation can ruin you if the damage award is high enough and/or if litigation costs exceed the available funds.

Bad advice from certain "fanboi" patent attorneys

I have previously criticized on more than one occasion the unrealistic suggestions by various "Apple fanboi" patent attorneys that app developers should defend themselves against an apparently well-funded troll like Lodsys even without hard and fast guarantees -- along the lines of blanket coverage -- from major platform makers like Apple and Google.

There are only two reasons for which patent attorneys give such bad advice:

  1. They are unable/unwilling to recognize that little "indie" app developers have completely different financial situations than those who can truly afford to defend themselves in a U.S. patent litigation, and it's pretty clear that they aren't truly on the side of app developers but are purely self-serving.

  2. They are concerned about the potential political backlash of hundreds of thousands of app developers now having to consider themselves reasonably likely targets of patent trolls.

    If those patent attorneys truly meant to support app developers against trolls, they'd advocate either the abolition of software patents or enforcement restrictions concerning little guys. But they just want to make people believe that the problem caused by Lodsys can be solved within the patent system.

    The problem is not only about litigation costs but even more so about the risk of damage awards (especially if one can't afford very good legal counsel, one can lose a lawsuit big-time). While one can argue that app developers shouldn't be liable for huge damages, the trolls can make damages claims based on all sorts of theories and then it's typically up to the jury.

    There's no doubt that patent law can do something about bad patents. Reexamination, for instance, can be very impactful if you do it in time or if you can afford to take your chances in a potentially protracted lawsuit with an uncertain outcome. But it often takes years. Once you get approached by someone like Lodsys or MacroSolve, you have to make a responsible decision. If you can't afford to litigate, it's unrealistic to expect that reexamination will solve your problem. It may, but even if you hope for the best, you have to prepare for the worst.

  3. It's additionally possible that some of them are such "fanbois" that they don't want to call out Apple (and Google) on their failure to really provide app developers with the guarantees that would be needed. Instead, Apple limits its damages to $50 per app developer.

Whatever the reasons are, the way those "fanboi" patent attorneys (none of whom works for a firm that I've ever seen engaged in any high-profile litigation in the areas I monitor) have misled developers and raised false expectations has already had some really bad effects. Let me provide two examples from emails I recently received from two app developers targeted by Lodsys:

  • When I pointed a mailing list of concerned developers to my suggested course of action for addressing the Lodsys situation cost-effectively, a discussion ensued and one of them claimed that "no one will go bankrupt" because of Lodsys. That claim is wrong because there is considerable risk. If Apple and Google don't cover their developers, one or more of the developers who refuse to take a license may indeed be sued and may face a devastating damages award. I'm not saying that it's certain to happen -- but it's not certain that it won't. So you can't ignore the risk.

    By resisting Lodsys, you can't do away with trolls in general and software patents in particular. You don't make the world a better place. So think carefully about what you have to lose vs. what you have to gain.

  • Another developer told me that he's "only had the initial claim notice" so far. What, "only"? All those notices that I saw tell people to commence licensing talks with Lodsys within 21 days. There's a high risk of being sued. They don't have to send you even one letter to sue you, and after they send one, they don't have to send you a reminder. Ignore their first letter at your peril. (I told that to that developer directly. But I want to warn everyone else here.)

    It's important to understand that Lodsys is a serious, apparently well-funded patent troll. This is not the kind of scam emails involving bank accounts in certain African countries that you can click away. Once they've sent you a letter, you have to make a responsible decision whether or not to respond by their deadline.

It's always easier to raise false hopes than to tell people the harsh reality they face. I think TiPb's Rene Ritchie summed it up well. He called my recent write-up on how app developers should deal with the Lodsys situation "a heart-breaking yet pragmatic set of recommendations for developers".

ESET moved its declaratory judgment suit against Lodsys from Southern California to Eastern Wisconsin

I previously reported on antivirus software maker ESET's declaratory judgment action against all four Lodsys patents. The original lawsuit was filed in Southern California, where ESET's U.S. subsidiary is headquartered.

Yesterday, ESET refiled its suit (at its own initiative) with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

This move appears to be a reaction to Lodsys's recent court filings, according to which its CEO Mark Small is based in Wisconsin. ESET's new declaratory judgment complaint states this:

"On information and belief, Mark Small is the Chief Executive Officer of Lodsys, LLC, is Lodsys's sole employee, and conducts that company's business from an office located in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, within this judicial district."

The problem that ESET has it that Lodsys sued ESET in Texas before ESET's new declaratory judgment action in Wisconsin. ESET's California lawsuit came first, but the one in Wisconsin is a new one in formal terms. Lodsys has the first-filer advantage here.

However, at least ESET avoided the mistake that four other companies made by suing in the Northern District of Illinois based on the assumption that Mark Small lives there. They saw his LinkedIn profile, which says "Greater Chicago Area". But that's an interpretable term. According to Google Maps, Oconomowoc (which is located near Milwaukee) is about 120 miles outside of Chicago. Chicago is a big city, the United States is a huge country, so Mark Small apparently considered "Greater Chicago Area" an appropriate description of where he's based.

There will be some more wrangling over venues between Lodsys and various defendants. But none of that is going to solve the problem that app developers face right now.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.


Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Monday, June 6, 2011

MacroSolve sues another 20 companies (now 30 in total) over electronic forms patent

Three weeks ago I reported on MacroSolve's first two lawsuits accusing a total of 10 companies (some of them small mobile app developers) of infringement of an electronic questionnaire (i.e., forms) patent. I later told the story of my telephone conversation with MacroSolve's CEO, in which I told him honestly that I want him to fail.

Now MacroSolve filed another lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas -- its third one so far, all of them over the same patent. The following 20 companies are named as defendants in the latest suit (in the order in which they are listed in the complaint):

  1. Antenna Software (of New Jersey) over its Antenna Mobility Platform and/or Volt Platform

  2. Cengea Solutions (of Winnipeg, Canada) over its Cengea Mobile Software Framework and/or services

  3. Data Systems Intentional (of Kansas) over its dcLINK platform and/or MOBILEApps products and/or services

  4. Environmental Systems Research Institute (of California) over its ArcGIS and/or ArcPad products and/or services

  5. Invensys Systems [doing business as] Invensys Operations Management (apparently a subsidiary of a British company) over its Wonderware IntelaTrac application platform products
    and/or services

  6. TrueContext Mobile Solutions Corporation (of Ontario, Canada) over its TrueContext ProntoForms products and/or services

  7. Spring Wireless USA, Inc. (of Washington state with another U.S. office in Texas) over Spring Wireless mobility platform products and/or services

  8. Zerion (of Virginia) over its iForm Builder mobile platform products and/or services

  9. BizSpeed (headquartered in Georgia) over its goRoam mobile platform products and/or services

  10. Syclo LLC (of Illinois) over its Agentry Mobile Platform products and/or services

  11. Xora, Inc. (headquartered in California) over its Xora GPS mobile enterprise products and/or services

  12. Spira Data Corp. (of Alberta, Canada) over its Spira Mobile Enterprise Application Platform products and/or services

  13. Survey Analytics (of Washington state) over its Mobile Research Platform products and/or services

  14. DataMAX Software Group (of California) over its RFGen Mobile Framework products and/or services; an Oracle partner

  15. Ventyx, an ABB subsidiary with offices in the US (including one in Texas) over its Service Suite Mobile Workforce Management Platform products and/or services

  16. Air2Web Inc. (headquartered in Georgia) over its Mobile Development Suite application development platform products and/or services

  17. General Data Company, Inc. (headquartered in Ohio) over its Enterprise Mobile Computing products and/or services

  18. Realtime Results (headquartered in Missouri) over its Open Door Sales Solution products and/or services

  19. Millenium Information Technology, Inc. [doing business as] MiT Systems, Inc. (of California) over its MiT EzSales Mobile products and/or services

  20. Agilis Systems, LLC (headquartered in Missouri) over its SmartForms products and/or services

On Friday, Article One Partners (a patent-related crowdsourcing company) announced a bounty of $5,000 for invalidating MacroSolve's patent-in-suit. I think Article One Partners does some good stuff, and I really hope MacroSolve's patent will be invalidated. However, some of the entities sued by MacroSolve lack the resources to afford a proper defense in a U.S. patent lawsuit, and therefore can't fight this out in court. Even if someone found perfect prior art today and if every expert felt strongly that it would help take down MacroSolve's patent-in-suit, it would still take a lot of time before the patent would (in a best-case scenario) be invalidated, and those lawsuits in East Texas would continue at least for the time being.

It would be great if the 30 different companies sued by MacroSolve so far could organize a joint defense -- or if not all of them, then at least a group of a significant size. Those defendants who have significant resources (and some of them clearly do, especially some of those named as defendants in today's lawsuit) should have a strategic interest in making sure that no one is forced to give in early and settle. MacroSolve will use any such settlement in two ways: it will use the money it receives to fund further litigation, and it will try to create the impression that its patent is valid (since some "licensed" it, even if only because they couldn't afford to defend themselves in court).

I call on all 30 defendants to try to form as broad an alliance as possible among them, and I keep my fingers crossed that Article One Partners' initiative will do away with that patent.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.


Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Worse than Lodsys, MacroSolve sues little app developers without advance warning

There's a lot of outrage at Lodsys's scheme to demand patent royalties from little app developers who can't defend themselves, but there should be at least as much indigation -- if not more -- over what MacroSolve is doing. Unlike Lodsys, which firstly sent out letters offering a license, MacroSolve appears to employ a sue-first-ask-questions-later tactic at least against some and possibly all of its targets.

One of MacroSolve's victims, a small app developers with revenues that I would estimate to be only in the tens of thousands of dollars, contacted me yesterday to tell me about this. This morning I also saw a Guardian article that describes the overall situation very well, but I'd like to add a few pieces to the puzzle.

While Lodsys appears to be focused on iOS (iPhone, iPad, iPod) apps for the time being (subsequent assertions against apps for other platforms are likely, though), MacroSolve's infringement allegations include not only iOS but also Android and BlackBerry apps. Possibly also other platforms, but those are the three I've been able to verify.

MacroSolve's patent-in-suit covers electronic forms distributed via the Internet or to mobile devices

In terms of lending itself to incredibly broad interpretations and infringement allegations, MacroSolve's patent-in-suit is similarly dangerous as Lodsys's in-app upgrade patent. MacroSolve is suing companies over U.S. Patent No. 7,822,816 on a "system and method for data management", "including the steps of: creating a questionnaire; transmitting the questionnaire to a remote computer; executing the questionnaire in the remote computer to prompt a user for responses to questions of the questionnaire; transmitting the responses to a sever via a network; making the responses available on the Web." In other words, anyone who distributes electronic forms via the Internet or to mobile devices and then collects and evaluates the answers could be accused of infringing the patent.

It baffles me that the USPTO granted this patent. When reading its description, it's hard to discern any major difference between what this claimed invention does and the purpose HTML forms have been serving for a long time, and prior to HTML, electronic forms in certain client-server architectures. The patent was applied for in 2003. Even if the patent office didn't find prior art that matched exactly what the patent application describes, it should have rejected the application because any differences (if there are any at all) between that claimed invention and prior art should not be sufficient to constitute a patentable invention.

But like I explained in the Lodsys context, if app developers can't afford to defend themselves in a costly, protracted and risky U.S. patent lawsuit, the patent holder may successfully force them to pay no matter how weak the patent or how dubious the infringement assertion is.

MacroSolve sues first, asks questions later -- and the platform makers don't appear to help the app devs

MacroSolve is nastier than Lodsys. I know from one of the defendants that the first time he ever heard from them was when the complaint was served on him -- in other words, they sued without any advance warning.

Defending oneself against patent infringement claims in the U.S. is very expensive (as I explained). It's quite possible that some of the companies attacked by MacroSolve wouldn't be able to survive a full-blown litigation, so unless they manage to settle this early, they'll be put out of business by what is probably one of the most baffling patents ever asserted in the history of the United States.

At least one of the defendants contacted Apple weeks ago, but hasn't received any answer from them yet.

I don't know at this point whether any of those app devs whose Android apps are attacked by MacroSolve also contacted Google, or whether anyone who is also being sued over BlackBerry apps contacted RIM. Having looked at the judicial process so far, there's every indication that the app devs are left to their own devices. In the first of the two lawsuits filed by MacroSolve, three of the defendants have meanwhile filed their answers to the complaint, and each of them used a different law firm. If a platform maker had stepped into the ring, there would likely be some coordination with all of them using the same firm.

As far as Apple's particular situation is concerned, I believe the MacroSolve problem -- although that patent could be asserted against many thousands of iOS apps -- may be a lower priority than Lodsys. With Lodsys's patent assertion against in-app upgrades, Apple's own in-app purchasing API appears to play at least a certain role in the infringement theory. Also, Lodsys's assertions are lmited to iOS apps at this stage, and above all it's awkward that Apple itself purportedly has a license to that patent and even co-financed its original purchase by Intellectual Ventures.

But to the mobile industry at large, the MacroSolve problem should be important enough to take serious action. In my opinion, Apple, Google and RIM should in this context forget about all of their other quabbles and quarrels and jointly take on MacroSolve, just like Microsoft and Google teamed up against GeoTag, a troll who sued almost 400 of their customers.

MacroSolve has already filed two lawsuits against a total of ten companies

MacroSolve initially sued four companies that are not particularly large but not extremely small either. With the second lawsuit MacroSolve also targeted very little guys. Both lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a court that is widely considered "troll-friendly".

On March 4, 2011, MacroSolve filed its first patent infringement lawsuit against four companies:

  • Brazos Technology: this company offers software named Brazos Technology Ticket Writer or, apparently more commonly, eCitation, that enables police officers to write parking or speeding (or similar) tickets on the spot with a mobile device. MacroSolve attacks that ticketing solution, which presumably requires custom handheld devices with a printer (not off-the-shelf smartphones), as well as Brazos's Mobile Application Environment Toolkit. Brazos's website doesn't say for which mobile platforms customers can develop applications with that toolkit.

  • On The Spot Systems: this startup was founded last year and provides a survey solution for businesses interested in customer feedback on a frequent basis, "accessible by any smartphone or online." An iPhone/iPad/iPod app is available on Apple's app store. There's also a link to an Android version and the app may also be available for BlackBerry and Palm devices.

  • Formstack: this company provides a solution for HTML forms. I haven't seen any indication that they offer mobile apps at this stage, although that might be a natural extension at some point.

  • Blue Shoe Mobile: MacroSolves sues this company over "its customized restaurant app products and system." The apps are available for iOS and Android.

It seems that all of the first four defendants defend themselves at this stage (although it is not certain that all of them can survive a complete lawsuit). That may have frustrated MacroSolve, which might have hoped for some quick and easy wins. At any rate, MacroSolve became more aggressive with a second lawsuit filed on April 18, 2011, against six defendants, which appear to be, on average, smaller than the initial targets:

  • Canvas Solutions: this company offers mobile business applications and data collection forms for several platforms (Android, BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, and Windows Mobile).

  • GeoAge: MacroSolves accuses this company of infringing its patent with its Field Adapted Survey Toolkit (FAST) and SurveyMe offerings. FAST appears to be designed primarily for access through BlackBerry smartphones or desktop PCs. Windows Mobile PDAs are also mentioned but not in detail. With SurveyMe it's completely unclear to me which platforms GeoAge supports...

  • Kony Solutions: this company does app development for hire, with its stated mission being to "enable Fortune 500 companies to offer consumers and employees feature-rich mobile applications in less time and at lower costs than any other solution." On its Partners page, Kony lists Apple, Google, Microsoft and RIM.

  • Widget Press: this company is attacked because of its FormEntry product, which enables customers to "create native form based apps for the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. No coding required." Widget Press also has an offering for the Mac.

  • Pogo ("People On the Go"): this company is accused of patent infringement with "its Mobi platform and/or its suite of Distribution Industry Mobile offerings". According to the company's website, this technology "supports iPhone, BlackBerry and Droid platforms" and Pogo claims it enables customers to build "dynamic, functional apps including consumer transactions" in a matter of hours.

  • SWD (Spelunking Web Design): this web hosting and web development company is sued over its "Sweb Development applications and/or SwebApps applications". SwebApps is a tool for building iOS apps.

MacroSolve has already stated that it sees a huge business opportunity for its patent, so the ten companies initially sued are just the start of it. They will do more, and they may already have approached alleged infringers with royalty demands (but no such incident is known at this point).

MacroSolve recently repositioned itself for a patent assertion spree

The final four paragraphs of The Guardian's article on MacroSolve's lawsuits provide some useful background. This appears to be a company that's been doing mobile development for a while, but not always successfully: its shares are currently worth only a tenth of what they used to be worth in 2009, and revenues in the first quarter of 2011 were down to only $116,000. The company's shares are traded "over the counter", which means it's a second-class citizen among publicly traded companies.

When the USPTO granted that unbelievable electronic questionnaire patent to them in October 2010, MacroSolve issued a press release in which its chairman touted the patent as "the biggest step forward [he's] seen during [his] career in the mobility ecosystem." According to a press release on MacroSolve's first patent infringement lawsuit, that chairman, Jim McGill, "spent the past 20 years consulting with companies on patent litigation issues with a focus on how to best monetize their IP" and personally leads the current assertion spree. The grant of the patent apparently enabled MacroSolve to raise $775,000 of "bridge funding" (in other words, temporary financing to avoid insolvency) in November, on the promise of aggressively enforcing and thereby monetizing that unspeakable patent.

In October, MacroSolve's president and CEO, Clint Parr, said that they are "excited to be an integral part of the evolution of a soon to be $1 trillion industry". If they developed great apps themselves that enabled them to become an "integral part" of this industry, I would congratulate them. But that patent must be fought. If that patent is (hopefully!) taken down before they generate too much licensing revenue, they'll be finished. And that's exactly what makes them so dangerous in the meantime. They'll try to sue the defenseless while Apple, Google and RIM are sitting on the sideline, or don't even seem to care at all.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn: