Apple Hit with $368 Million Judgment in VPN Patent Lawsuit from VirnetX

[NakedPaulToast]

Isn't this the time where somebody suggests Apple should just buy them?

[Plutonius]

Originally Posted by TheRainKing

Will a day ever pass without someone being sued?

Give me your address and I'll have a lawyer contact you with the answer .

[Bubba Satori]

Originally Posted by MCP-511

Just forward that check from samesung to VirnetX.

It should be a 7 inch iCheck. Nobody has ever done 7 inch checks before.
And sign the iCheck with a stylus. Magic innovation.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Snowy_River

Software patents, like all patents, ARE good. If you don't provide some protection for time and money invested in research and development needed in most forms of the invention process (including software development), then there is less incentive to innovate. In some areas, that incentive might arguably drop to near zero.

I think that's a demonstrably false presumption. Software patents were rare up until the 1990s, but that didn't stop anyone from innovating anyway. The actual code (which is more like a REAL invention) was protected by copyright, and the look by trademark, design patent and trade dress.

Also, not using software patents certainly didn't stop a half million apps from being created for the Apple App Store.

Software, an industry that move at amazing speed when compared to other more traditional industries, should arguably be given a protection time that is notably shorter than that provided to patents in other industries.

Indeed, some have proposed that if we're going to get stuck with software patents, at least drop them down to lasting only two years.

Originally Posted by LordVic

Analysts estimated that last year alone, over 20 Billion dollars was spent in Patent related purchases and lawsuits.

Imagine if those companies put as much effort into curing cancer or some other diseases.

[Bubba Satori]

Originally Posted by NakedPaulToast

Isn't this the time where somebody suggests Apple should just buy them?

That comes after the "Steve wouldn't let this happen" post.

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Oh, so when it's Apple that's guilty, the patent is broken...

Software patents are just an abheration.

The patent system is broke when you can prove you've developed the technology on your own and can still be sued when someone else comes along and said they did it first. That's just complete crap.

ALL a patent should do is make sure someone can't take your product and duplicate it. That's not what happened here. This is the Eastern District of Texas here... this isn't the first time they've refused to let companies defend themselves. It is an award happy court.

[Ryan John]

Originally Posted by NakedPaulToast

Isn't this the time where somebody suggests Apple should just buy them?

Head over to wikipedia and read up a bit about Samsung as a company. Here's a link for you Samsung Wikipedia, then come back here and tell us why your statement is a little ridiculous.

[kingtj]

I was going to post the same thing; that the patent system is clearly broken. But it's not to rush to Apple's defense. The fact they can waste millions at a time bickering back and forth with the likes of Samsung is just as ridiculous as this patent suit.

It's becoming a big legal battlefield, where any decent sized company has to start fighting, or else they're just a target for patent attack by someone else out there. By picking on as many other businesses as possible, you can keep winning enough settlements to cover your losses when other guys come after you for things.

I watched a video last night by a former world bank manager (giving a speech at a university). One of his main points was how the USA gave up our manufacturing base because we were sure we "didn't need to do manual labor like that anymore in a modern society". We relied on becoming a service industry. But now we've outsourced much of that to other people. So then we were a technology leader, but we've watched the Asian continent and India take that away from us in recent years too. So the question is, what does America have left to make money with?

Right now, it looks like nobody really has the answer so a lot of poaching is going on by way of the legal system and relatively baseless lawsuits.

Probably another sign of our demise ...

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Oh, so when it's Apple that's guilty, the patent is broken...

Software patents are just an abheration.

[Mikey7c8]

Originally Posted by Snowy_River

Software patents, like all patents, ARE good. If you don't provide some protection for time and money invested in research and development needed in most forms of the invention process (including software development), then there is less incentive to innovate. In some areas, that incentive might arguably drop to near zero.

Originally Posted by kdarling

I think that's a demonstrably false presumption. Software patents were rare up until the 1990s, but that didn't stop anyone from innovating anyway. The actual code (which is more like a REAL invention) was protected by copyright, and the look by trademark, design patent and trade dress.

The thing that riles me about this one was that the developers in question built something without anyone's IP, but because of the way in which they 'invented' their thing happened to be the same way as someone elses patented way they're getting screwed.

Developers the world over build things using the same tools and processes as everyone else, and we still innovate by creating products (like FaceTime in this case) that stand on their own.

[IGregory]

I do believe the patent system is broken but after reading Macrumors article there isn't enough information for me to form a judgement as to whether the patent system, even when fixed, would have negated this award. So, for those of you attributing this award to a faulty patent system, maybe you should investigate further.

[JAT]

Originally Posted by Ryan John

Head over to wikipedia and read up a bit about Samsung as a company. Here's a link for you Samsung Wikipedia, then come back here and tell us why your statement is a little ridiculous.

I think you are in the wrong thread. Check the headline, again.


Why is nobody talking about the last paragraph? Where a claim is made that VirnetX still wants Apple to stop using this code despite winning a monetary settlement? A little odd, considering the buried/intrinsic nature of this software. It's not like...Photoshop or Office. They should want people to use it, once paid.

[Ironduke]

The shroud of the darkside has fallen

Begun the patent wars have!

[VulchR]

Perhaps it's not the system that is an issue, but the personnel who award patents. Also, any government contract should require any resulting non-classified IP to become public domain. If the article is correct, then it sounds like US citizens have paid for this patent already.

[ElRojito]

How is it infringement if the Engineers at Apple didn't even know about this po-dunk company (just like the rest of us have never heard of them) and figured this technology out on their own? Seems to me like they accidentally stumbled upno the same, easy answer that this other company did. Doesn't sound like infringement to me. I am ok with awarding money, but halting FaceTime is over the top.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by ElRojito

How is it infringement if the Engineers at Apple didn't even know about this po-dunk company (just like the rest of us have never heard of them) and figured this technology out on their own? Seems to me like they accidentally stumbled upno the same, easy answer that this other company did. Doesn't sound like infringement to me. I am ok with awarding money, but halting FaceTime is over the top.

That's precisely the reason everyone says Patents are broken when relating to software, whether it's Apple's software patents or anyone else's software patents.

Because it is infringement even if you didn't know of the other's patents. Patent infringement is not about copying, it's not about theft, it's simply about coming up with the same solution as what the other guy patented.

[Ryan John]

Originally Posted by JAT

I think you are in the wrong thread. Check the headline, again.


Why is nobody talking about the last paragraph? Where a claim is made that VirnetX still wants Apple to stop using this code despite winning a monetary settlement? A little odd, considering the buried/intrinsic nature of this software. It's not like...Photoshop or Office. They should want people to use it, once paid.

Indeed I am Jat, thanks for pointing that out. So many lawsuits my tiny mind got all confused

[aristotle]

It is not just the patent system that is the problem but the entire legal system in the US that allows patent trolls to shop for jurisdictions. The East Texas district is known to be corrupt and to side with patent troll virtually 100% of the time. They should be forced to try their patent in the jurisdiction of the accused which would be California. If a company is considered an "entity" then it should have the right to be judged by its peers.

[Belly-laughs]

pretty sure i used video conferencing software over isdn mid 90s.

normally a patent is given if it's "innovative" and the solution is not obvious to a skilled person with knowledge of other related patents or similar known techniques. i haven't read the patent in detail but i'm sure apple is willing to have it's validity further investigated.

[magbarn]

Damn AAPL is getting destroyed. WTF did I buy it at $614 again? A bargain?! lol.

[RawBert]

Maybe now they can afford a better logo.

[HurtinMinorKey]

Originally Posted by Belly-laughs

pretty sure i used video conferencing software over isdn mid 90s.

normally a patent is given if it's "innovative" and the solution is not obvious to a skilled person with knowledge of other related patents or similar known techniques. i haven't read the patent in detail but i'm sure apple is willing to have it's validity further investigated.

You're referring to what is known as "prior art". An inventor does not need to show that a product is innovative in order to get a patent; however, if an innovation is trivial or existed in prior technology, it can be invalidated by the courts during litigation.

[you people smh]

Originally Posted by madmin

So if I got that straight, anyone using dns to connect a vpn session has to pay these people who incidentally already got paid by the govt to develop their system in the first place ? Dunno bout Facetime but it sure is Facepalm !

exactly.

next thing you know anybody who puts rounded corners on something or wants to make a device in a rectangle shape will be sued....

[robbyx]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

That's precisely the reason everyone says Patents are broken when relating to software, whether it's Apple's software patents or anyone else's software patents.

Because it is infringement even if you didn't know of the other's patents. Patent infringement is not about copying, it's not about theft, it's simply about coming up with the same solution as what the other guy patented.

And the really stupid thing about software patents is that there are only so many ways to do things. It's absurd to think that every developer is going to come up with a different way of making the same type of function/feature work. Software patents are the enemy of innovation. The only people benefiting from them are patent trolls, not real live developers. These people don't create anything, don't produce anything, and are basically parasites living off the hard work of successful businesses.

I don't see developers suing other developers. I see holding companies with NOTHING to offer gouging successful businesses. I'm all for protecting the look and feel of a product, what makes the product unique and distinct. But it's a travesty that we allow patents like this one to even exist, much less be enforced.

[Thunderhawks]

Originally Posted by FieldingMellish

I'm almost glad about it. Facetime users clogged the wifi down to a crawl at a local Starbucks.

Imagine that, nothing but stress wherever we go.

Looks like the "it's all about ME" people are still everywhere.

[hondo77]

Am I the only one that noticed that Apple only has to pay about half of what VirnetX was originally asking for? Does that count as a victory for Apple?