Will a day ever pass without someone being sued?
Just forward that check from samesung to VirnetX.
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.
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.
Analysts estimated that last year alone, over 20 Billion dollars was spent in Patent related purchases and lawsuits.
Isn't this the time where somebody suggests Apple should just buy them?
Oh, so when it's Apple that's guilty, the patent is broken...
Software patents are just an abheration.
Isn't this the time where somebody suggests Apple should just buy them?
Oh, so when it's Apple that's guilty, the patent is broken...
Software patents are just an abheration.
Snowy_River said: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.
I think you are in the wrong thread. Check the headline, again.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
I'm almost glad about it. Facetime users clogged the wifi down to a crawl at a local Starbucks.