Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th May 2011 16:15 UTC, submitted by john
Legal This is certainly worth a meagre +1 in my book: patent troll Lodsys has actually taken the time to answer some of the concerns on the web regarding its legal threats to several small-time iOS developers. There's some interesting stuff in there.
Thread beginning with comment 473271
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Still fsckd up
by pantheraleo on Mon 16th May 2011 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still fsckd up"
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

The steps required to upgrade a piece of software are much more trivial than you make them out to be.


You are assuming a very primitive upgrade process that simply replaces the entire application with a new version. That of course, requires downloading the entire application again even for minor bug fixes. What if the application is large? What if there are custom modules installed? Your primitive upgrade process would blow away all of the custom modules. What if compatibility with existing modules needs to be determined? Your process ignores that as well, and might leave the application broken after the upgrade because some existing modules are not compatible. I'm assuming an upgrade process that is modular, that needs to determine what parts of the application need to be upgraded, can resolve any compatibility issues, and can download only the updates needed rather than replacing the entire application.

I'm not saying I agree with the patent. I don't. But the steps you describe are a very primitive upgrade process that amounts to nothing more than deleting the old version and installing the new version type operation. That's now how most software is updated these days.

Edited 2011-05-16 19:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Still fsckd up
by snorkel2 on Mon 16th May 2011 19:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Still fsckd up"
snorkel2 Member since:
2007-03-06

It depends on the application, I know for a fact a lot of desktop type applications that have a single exe are upgraded by simply downloading a new exe. If you develop in a language that creates single no dependency exes and does not use DLLs, it's very easy to upgrade that way. You can also update a app like this by using a difference engine and only download the difference and then patch the exe or other files that way.

It's not rocket science by any means.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Still fsckd up
by pantheraleo on Mon 16th May 2011 19:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Still fsckd up"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

It's not rocket science by any means.


Nor is it as easy as you think it is unless the application is very simple. If you have a single exe and can just replace the whole thing, then sure. But typically only rather simple applications have one exe. Most applications rely on third party libs, etc. And simple binary patching only works for simple cases. It doesn't work for modular applications where there could be compatibility conflicts and such.

Edited 2011-05-16 19:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Still fsckd up
by allanregistos on Tue 17th May 2011 01:51 in reply to "RE[4]: Still fsckd up"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

It depends on the application, I know for a fact a lot of desktop type applications that have a single exe are upgraded by simply downloading a new exe. If you develop in a language that creates single no dependency exes and does not use DLLs, it's very easy to upgrade that way. You can also update a app like this by using a difference engine and only download the difference and then patch the exe or other files that way.

It's not rocket science by any means.

You talking about simple software implementation where upgrade is not a rocket science.

My current understanding about the patent is: patent=idea(how it works), and the code being used here is irrelevant.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Still fsckd up
by Alfman on Mon 16th May 2011 19:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Still fsckd up"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

pantheraleo,

"You are assuming a very primitive upgrade process..."

Of course different apps have different needs, some much more complex than others. But the point is the developer already knows how their application needs to be installed.

The world's upgrade processes worked fine before Lodsys patents ever came into the spotlight.

As with many software patents, the contribution made by Lodsys to their software is nil. Lodsys are just trying to abuse the patent system to collect royalties on the work of others. Given the screwed up state of the USPTO, they just might win.

Edited 2011-05-16 20:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Still fsckd up
by pantheraleo on Mon 16th May 2011 20:07 in reply to "RE[4]: Still fsckd up"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Again, I'm not saying Lodsys's patent is valid. And there are plenty of modular upgrade frameworks out there, many of which use different means to achieve the same end. All I am saying is that upgrading software is often not as trivial as some are trying to make it out to be.

But the point is the developer already knows how their application needs to be installed.


That's not always true. I work on highly modular applications. I don't know what additional modules the customer has added to the original software we sold them. They may have even written their own custom modules and added them through our modular extension system. Our upgrade system has to account for all of that. It's very complex. More like upgrading an operating system than upgrading a single piece of software.

Reply Parent Score: 2