No, Google, not me, was trumpeting that figure. Google made a publicly-accessible court filing that claimed Oracle demanded up to $6.1 billion. In that particular legal context, Google would not have had to state the number at all (it could have merely referenced it), or it could have redacted it for the general public, but it wanted to put it out.
I wasn't even first to pick it up: Reuters reported on it before I did.
My reporting was nonjudgmental. I just informed everyone of what Google's filing said.
The best course of action now depends largely on the success of Apple's motion for an intervention. If that motion is granted, which is reasonably likely (though never certain), it will be time for Apple to clarify what support and coverage it gives to the sued app developers.
I know from at least one of them that he is NOT covered by Apple. If that continues to be the situation, the advice may unfortunately have to be at some point to sign Lodsys's license agreement if that results in dismissal from the lawsuit or helps avoid one.
For Android developers, the question is what Google will do. So far they say nothing and do nothing. If Apple's motion is granted, the question must be asked why Google doesn't intervene. One of the accused apps is an Android app ("Labyrinth for Android"). If Google doesn't protect Android app developers, they will also have to consider very seriously a license deal with Lodsys.
I have seen Lodsys's license agreement. I would recommend that many app developers share the cost of having it reviewed by a lawyer (rather than get into Patrick Igoe's claim chart stuff, which is neither convincing nor useful to those who can't afford a multi-million-dollar lawsuit over that question). If a lawyer agrees that the license agreement is reasonable, which in my personal opinion it is, then that's definitely better than going to court.
Patrick Igoe also came up with a "divided infringement" theory, which I rebutted on my blog. Apple apparently doesn't believe in his theory either, so why should you?
The likelihood of any one developer being contacted by "174 entitiesl ike Lodsys" is extremely low -- the same developer is more likely to be struck by lightning.
I have repeatedly pointed out, especially on my blog, the problem of encouraging other trolls to go after app developers. But in the example, $100 is a much better deal than paying thousands of dollars to lawyers. The thing that should happen is for Apple and Google to take care of their app developers.
Further, that $100 is assuming that your app actually makes $17k, which from my limited knowledge of the app market means you're actually doing fairly well compared to most developers.
Though maybe they're only targeting the apps that they know have made a decent amount, I'm not sure...
What else would you expect a lawyer to recommend than something that makes lawyers money?
Should app developers with, for an example, revenues of $5,000 to $10,000 a year pay a patent attorney their entire annual income from their app for just a cursory (!) look at the issue (far from the cost of searching for prior art etc., which is way higher)? How practical is that?
Why doesn't the article talk about the cost of such legal defense and the risk of an East Texas jury handing a multi-million dollar damage award to Lodsys?
Why doesn't he compare the low cost of Lodsys's license for the average app developer to the cost of legal advice (let alone legal defense or damages ordered by a court)?
How can app developers without the resources in place to defend themselves ever even get to the point where they can seriously challenge Lodsys's claim chart?
How can one be not profoundly concerned when Lodsys sends a letter, given that Lodsys has already sued 27 entities and is embroiled in seven lawsuits in three different states?
And why does a self-proclaimed open source site like Groklaw promote a patent attorney who vigorously argues in favor of software patents on Twitter?
By the way, the same Patrick Igoe doubted in an email to me a few months ago that Nokia was in a position to turn Apple into the net payer. I predicted it in March, I reaffirmed that prediction in May, and I was proven right yesterday.
The only real advice he can give is "talk to a lawyer", just the same as advice you'd give to someone complaining of health issues with "talk to a doctor", whether you're a doctor or not doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with him looking after his own.
My advice is not to simply pay the license fees, but if (1) Apple and Google don't help their app developers (Apple appears to be willing to help but the extent of it isn't clear yet; Google has neither said nor done anything so far) and (2) the licensee fees are in a given case much less than the cost of even a cursory legal analysis, then they're an economically more intelligent choice unless the license agreement contains anything that poses a risk comparable to the one of being sued without a license agreement.
The new stories that surfaced today sounded similar, but James Thomson told me on Twitter that it's about a different company and patent this time around.
The article talks a lot about Groklaw's decline and accurately concludes does Groklaw must end now because otherwise it will slide into complete irrelevance. I concur. It has become an echo chamber for a small group of people, some of whom had a sectarian attitude.
On LWN, a user pointed out that text analysis tools show that some Groklaw articles were definitely written by male authors and others definitely by female authors:
http://lwn.net/Articles/437741/
This is yet another clear indication that "PJ" was just an avatar.
I have run text analysis tools against nearly everything I've written. Well over 75% of my writing is identified as likely to be female. Last I checked, I'm male. Don't put so much stock in this stuff.
I wasn't even first to pick it up: Reuters reported on it before I did.
My reporting was nonjudgmental. I just informed everyone of what Google's filing said.