Apple should pay. And while they're at it, they should pay what they owe to Qualcomm.
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 Must Pay VirnetX $440 Million for Patent Infringement, Appeals Court Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Were you thinking you were quoting someone else? I didn't say they were "entitled". Legally, VirtnetX is "entitled" to their win. Morally, they're human pieces of garbage. VirtnetX is proof of the need for patent reform. They abuse the system. If this were anyone else, I'd say Apple should pay up.
And countering 'human pieces of garbage' would be to just bully your way by buying out your competition.
I recall Microsoft being shady like that and Apple consumers never liked it. What's changed?
You're still missing the part where VirtnetX doesn't make a goddamned thing. But yes, let's keep throwing out incomparable situations. How about Samsung next? That's always good.
GREAT reply. Someone needs to stickie this to the top of every patent litigation article.
The original SAIC (now called Leidos with a new SAIC spun off) who I think were the original assignee of some of the patents in lawsuit and also took part in original lawsuits (not sure exactly how). They are big contractors with NSA, Homeland, DoD, and others including FBI. VirnetX’s founder used to work for SAIC. Not sure how VirnetX was founded exactly and how patents got assigned to them, but at least initially you would think SAIC and it’s govt partners (which has crossed across administrations) had a large amount of influence on VirnetX’s beginnings and possibly still today.
Provably incorrect. They didn't buy the patents in question. They were co-invented by VirnetX founder Robert Short. So according to your proclamation, you should have no problem with VirnetX. The originator of the patent sued. The originator won. What say you now?
Apple could have, and still can settle this just like Microsoft did for Skype. They (MS) settled a $200 million verdict for ~11 cents on the dollar and forked over $23 million in the Skype case. Skype's basically everywhere. Some battles aren't really worth the continuation when the larger war can be won. FaceTime probably could have been just as ubiquitous as Skype... 'cept still fighting the same 'ole battle. Is it really worth it if by continuing the Samsung strategy of endless appeals, Apple limits the reach of FaceTime? Wouldn't be to me, but I ain't Apple.
The difference is Apple actually makes and sells products. Some use some of their patents, others don’t, and some patents may be for future products in their pipeline that we don’t know about. When’s the last time you bought something from VirnetX?
I’m not for or against either side here but I’m confused.
If the patents have been ruled invalid how can they be ordered to pay for patent infringement ?
Anybody ?
If the patents have been ruled invalid how can they be ordered to pay for patent infringement ?
Anybody ?
One of the things you are allowed to do with patents are license them for use. Not the patent owners fault that apple doesn't want to pay for a license.
[doublepost=1547597047][/doublepost]
When a so called patent troll buys patents, the original inventor got paid. When apple copied, the original inventor got nothing. Apple are the parasites.
In fact, Apple could do so, as it's a publicly traded company. But the company's market cap is based on the general market belief that this verdict will either be overturned, marked down drastically, or settled for a much smaller value.
[doublepost=1547597611][/doublepost]
The SEC and Justice Department should have no issues with an action such as you've described. The SEC doesn't care about patent holdings, or whether one company is suing another; it only cares that markets are operating properly. And the Justice Department only cares about monopolistic behavior. Unless these patents would contribute to Apple's monopoly power, it shouldn't be an issue.
You've got the story absolutely wrong. These patents were developed in-house at SAIC, then Ken Larsen and Dr Robert Short peeled off from SAIC to create Virnetx. Apple stole these patents and used them to provide security for iMessage, FaceTime and VPNoD, among other features. One Apple engineer even tried to patent the process, only to discover that Virnetx had already done so. Did that stop Apple from using them? No -- they just figured they could make Virnetx spend millions on legal bills and grind them into bankruptcy. That strategy failed and now Cook has no options left other than to pay. SCOTUS will not give Apple the time of day on these two trials. Game over. But hey---you can make good money now by buying VHC at cheap prices as it heads for $10 and above. Apple will have to pay VHC $1.20 per device going forward. That's a big hit to Apple's margins. I see a buyout coming sometime -- although Cook and Larsen despise each other.
[doublepost=1547621541][/doublepost]
Apple must pay VirnetX $440 million after an appeals court upheld an earlier judgement in favor of the patent holding company, reports Reuters.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today denied Apple's appeal of a 2016 verdict that awarded VirnetX $302 million, which increased to $439.7 million when taking into account damages and interest calculated during retrials.
VirnetX first sued Apple in 2010, accusing FaceTime of infringing on patents held by VirnetX. The two companies have been fighting in court since then, and Apple in 2017 said it would appeal the final $440 million judgement.
In a separate case that is also still unsettled, VirnetX was awarded an additional $502.6 million from Apple after a court found that Apple's FaceTime, iMessage, and VPN on Demand features infringe on four VirnetX patents related to communications security.
Apple in total owes VirnetX $942 million, but is likely to continue to fight both rulings, as the patents in question have been ruled invalid by a separate court. Apple said it is disappointed with the ruling and will once again appeal.
Article Link: Apple Must Pay VirnetX $440 Million for Patent Infringement, Appeals Court Rules
There are several items stated incorrectly in this story. Although Apple can appeal today's Rule 36 ruling, in effect the company has no alternative but to pay VHC (Virnetx). Apple can appeal for an en banc hearing at the CAFC, but today's 3-0 decision, coming just ONE WEEK after the hearing, is telling Apple that their time is up -- they've delayed this case long enough -- and it's time to pay. After failing to get an en banc hearing, the only other alternative is to file a writ of certiorari with SCOTUS. But there are no issues of significance in either of these two cases so that avenue will also be closed to Apple.
So, I'm looking at the end of 2019 -- no later -- for Apple to take a hit of $1.20 to their margins. That's the amount that the courts have granted VHC for each device that Apple makes that contains VHC's IP (i.e., all of them). As for the "patents being ruled invalid by a separate court" -- that is a reference to the PTAB, which is under heavy fire for being anti-entrepreneur and anti-patent owner. For a variety of reasons, the coming PTAB rulings will be too late to help Apple. I won't bore with the details, but today's CAFC ruling (via Rule 36) is a direct slap in the face, essentially telling Apple it's time to settle. (Hint -- I suggest making money via VHC investments in shares and/or options -- it has a long way to climb upward).
You must practice what you preach. You cannot do one thing and expect others no to do the same as it then comes down to what is deemed reasonable and we all have different definitions of what is or isn’t.
Apple are hypocrites, (I’m not saying Virnet are not).
There are a lot of fanboy, “Patent troll” comments here.
All I see there is Pot/Kettle.
Unbelieveable. Apple use SOME of their patents. If they ‘break the law’ even once they are criminals, you can’t say “oh but most of the time they don’t”.
What Apple are trying to do is have their cake and eat it. No.
Who cares if they make products. With regard to those patents they don’t use what use is making other products?
Because damages were awarded before some of the patents were invalidated and the judge repeatedly warned Apple in subsequent appeals about trying to stall to introduce evidence from the later patent office validity hearings. The judge had already ruled that inadmissible. He also ruled that even after losing, Apple continued to violate the patent. Making their violation willful. Causing the judge to raise the damages.
But buying a patent and holding it isn’t breaking the law. It is however generally considered a ****** business model for a company to buy a bunch of vague patents on something, and sit on them while not making anything of them, and then suing companies that *do* make products that supposedly infringe on them. VirnetX hasn’t provided anything to the consumer space that benefits from these patents. Apple has. But if you want to defend these ****** business practices, that’s your prerogative.
1. They didn't buy the patents. They invented them.
2. Products in the consumer market are not a defining element of a patent.
3. Your entire argument is built on false assumptions.
Ironically, your accusations against VirtnetX (It is however generally considered a ****** business model for a company to buy a bunch of vague patents on something, and sit on them while not making anything of them, and then suing companies that *do* make products that supposedly infringe on them.) is exactly what Apple and their little cabal did when they formed Rockstar Consortium, bought some patents, and immediately started suing companies... so there is that.