[cheald]

I sincerely don't think that it's a stunt by Apple, and to claim that it is would require a fairly myopic view of the state of software patents today.

That said, the "conspiracy theory" falls apart because this is ultimately self-serving by Apple; in-app purchases translate to money for them, and if developers are too scared to include content purchasing options in their apps (since in-app is the only permitted method, natch), it means a direct hit to Apple's bottom line. It isn't altruistic towards developers, so it's silly to see it as a justification of Apple's 30% cut.

[juiceandjuice]

Apple Exec: People are pissed about the 30% in-app thing, what should we do?

Other Apple Exec: Add value to it.

Apple Exec: How do we do that?

Other Apple Exec: Show people that if they didn't use our methods and lose their 30%, they'll get sued for licensing fees for an in-app purchasing patent and probably lose it anyways.

Apple Exec: "Hey Lodsys, we're already paying you money, but could you do us a favor real quick..."

I'm not claiming this is what happened, because I sincerely don't think it is what went down. I'm just illustrating a theoretical and likely fictional path.

[cheald]

But...the problem is that developers are getting sued for the thing they were pissed about before, so now they're just double-pissed. It's not like they're getting sued for using some alternative that saves them 30% on purchases.

[evan_]

Why bring it up then?