So... VirnetX invented something and patented it. Then they defended their patents in court. Apple stole their idea, used it to make money and got caught. It's just amusing to see AAPL shareholders here losing their temper.
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
Christ, you’re all missing the point. They don’t release anything. Ever. They’re patent trolls.
Seems like there’s 18 people that get it, and about 8 people so far that are thick as a brick.
You are confused. Patent trolls are the entities that buy patents from other companies and then enforse them. VirnetX patented their own invention. Apple on the other hand tried their hand at patent trolling when they created a consortium (Rockstar Consortium) that bought Nortel's patents and then started trolling them.
The app being “censored” was literally full of messages inciting and demanding violent and illegal acts. If Apple hadn’t done something about it, Apple could have legal liability. Apple’s always had a policy against such apps - back in the day I had an app rejected just because it could arguably have been used for such purposes. And they were not wrong to reject it on that basis - it’s their App Store and their clearly-stated rules about content that incites violence.
I’m not remotely confused. VirnetX doesn’t make anything, they just sit on their patents. The origin doesn’t matter. Use it or lose it.
You are definitely confused. From Wikipedia:
In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art,[1] often through hardball legal tactics (frivolous litigation, vexatious litigation, strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), chilling effects, and the like). Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.
VirnetX invents stuff, patents it and makes money by licensing it to other companies (i.e. "in advance"). That's not patent trolling.
You’re definitely confused. They’re patent trolls. But go ahead, keep defending the little patent trolls!
Apple ordered to pay VirnetX $502.8 million in patent trial
Apple plans to appeal the decision
www.theverge.com
How VirnetX beat Apple: The strange case of the patent trolls
Apple has been told to pay a hefty fine to a small company for patent infringement. So why aren't we celebrating the victory of a 'David'? Because the little guy is a 'patent troll', stifling innovation by abusing the system, says Rhodri Marsden
www.independent.co.uk
Last edited:
There is a difference between waiting for the right time to make something of your patented idea and just buying vague patents to slap others with a lawsuit around when an actual idea comes along that generates money.
These guys are that. They just hold (or rather buy) patents for royalties without ever putting a product. Their sole business model revolves around making money from royalties or screwing anyone.
This is why patent law needs to be amended. These types of companies hamper innovation. FaceTime used to be great by doing peer-to-peer. Now with a server connection, it’s not as good. Thanks patent trolls.
$0.84 per iPhone is practically nothing, since the iPhone profit margin is so high
You took my joke, lol.
Apple just pushed the case back long enough that this amount is basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Worked with others. The only thing that was their own was WebKit, and although Safari was usually a decent browser, it was never a special reason people wanted a Mac.
I'm not sure where you're getting at. Where did the requirements of Apple must work *alone* on open sourcing their stuff that people think it's a *special reason* to get a Mac come from? I never signed up to discuss that.
sideshowuniqueuser made a blanket statement that Apple generally doesn't work on open sourcing their stuff which is not true. Fact is, Apple has open sourced their stuff as I've already shown through those links.
Cause you're talking about FaceTime, one of Apple's crown jewels on iOS.
Between me and sideshowuniqueuser, we were discussing if Apple open sources stuff. You jumped in the conversation and mistakenly thought differently of what the conversation is about so that's not really my problem.
Almost a dollar per device for a software feature in one app out of dozens that come by default on it and that most people don't use! Welcome to our new VirnetX overlords. I have no idea why Apple doesn't just punt and find another way to do whatever it is they are doing. Either they could follow what Zoom, WhatsApp, Skype, and dozens of other video conferencing applications are doing, or VirnetX has a lot more suing to do.
I know right? This is the same thing that BlackBerry did during SkyTel lawsuit. Initially they lost the suit and I lost money on their stock. Then I did an option, they acquired SkyTel, I got all my losses back plus a very handsome profit. Apple should have just acquired VirnetX and not have to pay future royalties, avoiding all existing awards.
Everyone in the industry tried and failed, including Microsoft and Google. So I would be surprised if VirnetX actually lost.
But 70 cents per devices is just ridiculous. The H.264 or H.265 *combined* doesn't cost that much. And it is insanely more complex. The PowerVR IP doesn't cost that much.
But 70 cents per devices is just ridiculous. The H.264 or H.265 *combined* doesn't cost that much. And it is insanely more complex. The PowerVR IP doesn't cost that much.
That would mean they are on their way to bankruptcy. Apple makes that money in approximately a day.
I think the market is still pricing in a significant likelihood that Apple won't end up having to pay this last judgment. If the invalidations of the patent claims which remain in this infringement case are made final before this judgment is, the judgment might be thrown out. That's why the parties are trying to drag out the respective cases (i.e. this infringement case and the PTAB invalidation case) as long as possible. VirnetX, e.g., waited as long as possible before filing its appeal from the PTAB decisions with the Federal Circuit. Apple will likely wait as long as it can to file an appeal of this decision. One side would like to see one case finalized first, the other would like to see the other case finalized first.
That said, VirnetX has almost no value beyond the likelihood of receiving a pay out from this case (and what it got from the previous Apple case) - and that's long been the case. It has around $200 million in book value largely as a result of the payment it got from Apple in the previous case. Aside from settlements it got (IIRC) in 2010 and 2013, it has never had a significant amount of income. It's been losing tens of millions of dollars a year trying to get to payouts from these Apple cases, surviving on the previous settlements and then paid-in capital. At this point I think it's fair to say that VirnetX is little more than a vehicle to try to collect these pay outs from Apple. (It tries to claim that it's more, of course.)
Even if Apple were able to acquire VirnetX, if it doesn't ultimately win this case, it would still have to pay a substantial portion of the judgment to Leidos (formerly SAIC) - the entity VirnetX acquired the rights for these patents from. The agreement between VirnetX and Leidos entitles Leidos to part of the proceeds from judgments and settlements.
VirnetX acquired the rights to the relevant patents from Leidos (formerly SAIC). And it has almost no income other than what it got from earlier settlements and judgments - most of that was from Microsoft and Apple. It had less that $100k in revenue in 2018 and in 2019. It had about $1.5 million in 2015, in 2016, and in 2017 - but almost all of that came from a settlement in 2013. It got a couple large settlements, totaling over $200 million, from Microsoft in 2010 and 2013. But since then it's been losing tens of millions of dollars a year, seemingly trying to get to these payouts from Apple, surviving in part on paid-in capital.
It doesn't matter to me whether someone refers to VirnetX as a patent troll. I generally don't; I don't use that term much anyway. But I think it's fair to say that, at this point, VirnetX is little more than a corporate vehicle used to try to collect these judgments from Apple.
Why is this considered patent trolling. The court said its their right and Apple should pay up. Sounds like Apple is the evil person here.
Tell me about it, somehow they own medicine formulas that save human lives. Thats seems to be ok with the law.
Personally, any one who puts the effort and risk the money into making something should be rewarded for it but the red line here is reasonable reward. Selling me a medication for $3 is different than giving me a $4000 pill because you own the patents.
Tell me about it, somehow they own medicine formulas that save human lives. Thats seems to be ok with the law.
Personally, any one who puts the effort and risk the money into making something should be rewarded for it but the red line here is reasonable reward. Selling me a medication for $3 is different than giving me a $4000 pill because you own the patents.