I run my own business. I know the terms and conditions of E&O. It doesn't work like Car insurance where premiums go up from multiple car claims. With E&O's you're buying an amount of insurance such as a $2 million policy per calendar year (which is for small business) which covers claims. Please do yourself a favor and understand business insurance rather than spouting out misinformation.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Loses Appeal in VirnetX Dispute, Could Owe Over $1.1 Billion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not all software patents can be packaged up for sale. Some are just pieces of a bigger picture. Important pieces, but still not a standalone product.
Manufacturing a patent has never been a requirement to hold one. There are a lot of patents that are registered, but yet to be implemented.
Patent trolling doesn't just mean patenting something you don't make. It means making patents, usually as vague as possible, with the sole intention of later suing companies that accidentally "violate" them. They never sell the patents, only sue. And they pick the courts that will treat them best, usually in Texas. It's been this way since the 90s at least.
I agree you should be able to invent things and never make them, instead selling the patents, and that right has to be defended. But when it comes to non-UI software, few ideas are novel, and almost always the entire value is in the execution. I don't know if companies ever buy software patents with the intention of using them. In Big Tech, patents are more for ammo in court in case another big corp goes after them.
So yes, if someone is sitting on software patents, chances are they're a troll. Not necessarily, but probably.
Last edited:
The "patent troll", patent law "expert" peanut gallery is equally hilarious and moronic.
In your utopia, to defend a patent, the patent holder must have a business that practices that patent...?
I know this will be hard for you... but think. What could be the unintended consequences of such a requirement?
In your utopia, to defend a patent, the patent holder must have a business that practices that patent...?
I know this will be hard for you... but think. What could be the unintended consequences of such a requirement?
Last edited:
Jeez you guys are rough on this company. If some other business was infringing on an apple patent would you still think apple isn't owed that money. Like others have said, that's the law suck it up and pay it. Like it or not apple is gonna have to pay it.
James
James
Why would they need to release something at CES? They've had their app in the App Store for a number of years and it's been available on Windows, MacOS, Android, and Linux for at least 5 years. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gabriel-collaboration-suite/id1022829557
The problem is these patents are not trivial or obvious (of course, non-obviousness being a bar to patentability). Patent examiners, juries, and judges have all adjudicated that the patents ARE not obvious.
Great job illustrating the unintended consequences of hamstringing "patent trolls."
If they're obvious and/or not novel, you can motion the USPTO for reexamination and submit your prior art. (Seriously.)
I'm very happy with this. Apple is not doing anything different, and soon will be chasing everyone who's biting a real apple publicly without paying fees to Apple.
As for the law, we need another one, which panellises Apple for preventing user from repairing every single bit of hardware in their computers.
***holes.
As for the law, we need another one, which panellises Apple for preventing user from repairing every single bit of hardware in their computers.
***holes.
You live by rounded-corner patents, you die by the rounded-corner patents.
Remind us, what did Apple release at CES this year? Last year? Oh that's right...... NOTHING!!!
Apple has spent literally millions trying to prove this patent is not novel, and is obvious. They haven't been able to.
Also, these patents aren't just out of nowhere for the purpose of litigation. They came from SAIC, which has done a ton of work with the NSA and IBM on network security. These are bonafide inventions, and there's no good reason Apple shouldn't pay a proper reasonable royalty.
Yeah right, because Apple are normally into open sourcing stuff huh?
This judgment isn't based on FaceTime. The findings of infringement by (the 2013 redesigned) FaceTime were overturned as the relevant claims were invalidated. This judgment in only based on (the 2013 redesigned) VPN on Demand. The relevant claims which it was found to infringe have also been invalidated, but there isn't a final decision on the PTAB invalidations yet because VirnetX's appeal is still before the Federal Circuit.