Apple Ordered to Pay $625 Million in VirnetX Patent Dispute

[sw1tcher]

Well to be fair, Apple actually makes products that use those patents. As far as I know, VirnetX does not make a single product and is essentially a patent troll.

So sad. If this company's sales were hurt by Apple's infringement, that's one thing, but they don't sell any products which is what makes this patent troll situation so criminal.

You don't need to make a product to hold a valid patent.

The University of Wisconsin's Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation doesn't make anything, yet they hold many patents.... some of which Apple infringed upon.

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/10/16/apple-university-of-wisconsin-234-million/


Apple must be a patent troll too since they hold many patents which they don't use/make products using them. I guess those patents should be made invalid and someone else should be free to use them, right?
[doublepost=1454542869][/doublepost]

Patents should be valid only as long as the actual inventor is alive.

Time to invalidate all of Steve Jobs' patents then since he's no longer alive.

 

[avanpelt]

Doesn't Apple have legal counsel that is well-versed in patent law that advises them of these existing patents ahead of time? I'm sure the answer is yes. So, is it a scenario where they're advised that a patent exists, told that it would probably cost them less than 1B if they got sued and lost, so they decide to infringe on the patent and take the risk?

 

[nocturnum]

Actually, lawsuits started by Apple mostly originate from the Jobs era. Timmy is too busy booking Bieber, while peacocking on something he has zero credit for.

 

[macs4nw]

Apple copying and stealing like usual. They're just as bad as Samsung.

I, and I believe many others probably agree, think Samsung in particular, is in a whole 'nother category. They have truly mastered the 'art' and no one even comes close; in the copying and stealing dept they 'win' by a landslide.....
At least you agree Samsung is bad..... lol ..... they produce some great components though.

 

[Jess13]

Tim Cook: “OK, team. Tomorrow’s revenue goes to VirnetX. The day after tomorrow, business as usual.”

 

[oneMadRssn]

Patents should be valid only as long as the actual inventor is alive. They should be licensed-- in the case of virtual networks, as FRAND -- but not bought. They're meant to reward invention, not speculation and patent trolling.

What does life and death have to do with it? So a brilliant inventor that comes up an awesome invention shouldn't be able to leave any of that property to his kids if he gets struck by a bus the day after he comes up with it? That's nonsense. Copyright laws have the silly life and death rules. Clearly defined yearly time limits are fairer, more predicable, and better all around.

Why should some patents be encumbered by FRAND rules when the inventor or owner of the patent had no input on the standard and had no desire to even be involved with it? Sure, if the inventors or owners of the patents want to be members of the standard setting body, and want to have input and influence over the standard, then yes, FRAND should apply. But it shouldn't be automatic to all patents that cover a certain standard without some affirmative consent from the owners or inventors at the time. Why should organizations like IEEE just get to pick and choose which patents they want to infringe in their future standards without repercussion?

Why shouldn't speculation be rewarded? Speculation is about balancing risk and reward. Speculation gets inventors paid. Why should the inventor take it upon themselves to manufacture or figure out licensing in order to be rewarded for their contribution? Why shouldn't the inventor be able to make a deal (upfront payment, or later royalties) to offload that risk on to someone else, who is more experienced at licensing and who is willing to take on that risk?

<s>Why do you hate inventors?</s>

 

[Mcmeowmers]

Doesn't Apple have legal counsel that is well-versed in patent law that advises them of these existing patents ahead of time? I'm sure the answer is yes. So, is it a scenario where they're advised that a patent exists, told that it would probably cost them less than 1B if they got sued and lost, so they decide to infringe on the patent and take the risk?

I think that would be a safe assumption of what happens behind closed doors. Just a "simple" business decision.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Doesn't Apple have legal counsel that is well-versed in patent law that advises them of these existing patents ahead of time? I'm sure the answer is yes. So, is it a scenario where they're advised that a patent exists, told that it would probably cost them less than 1B if they got sued and lost, so they decide to infringe on the patent and take the risk?

I've always wondered about that.
We know these mega corporations can't not know if they're violating patents.
Of course they do.

But for some reason they calculate that the risk/reward benefit is
somehow in their favor to do so. It's not a life or death scenario for them
so they roll the dice and when they lose the gamble it's simply
considered a normal cost of doing business and they carry on with
the behavior that resulted in the lawsuit in the first place.

 

[sw1tcher]

Doesn't Apple have legal counsel that is well-versed in patent law that advises them of these existing patents ahead of time? I'm sure the answer is yes. So, is it a scenario where they're advised that a patent exists, told that it would probably cost them less than 1B if they got sued and lost, so they decide to infringe on the patent and take the risk?

In many cases, it almost seems like Apple thinks it's cheaper to just roll the dice and see if anyone catches Apple infringing upon their patent(s). Then if Apple gets sued, just drag it out in court until a ruling is in Apple's favor, and if not just make some closed door deal to settle the matter... like with the Ericsson patent case: https://www.macrumors.com/2015/12/21/apple-ericsson-global-patent-license-agreement/

 

[MuppetGate]

Ahead of the jury's decision, Apple filed a request asking U.S District Judge Robert Schroeder to declare a mistrial, accusing VirnetX of misleading and confusing the jury during its closing arguments. Schroeder has not yet made a ruling on the request.

I'm thinking they're not gonna get their mistrial.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

apple did lawsuit on Samsung for their "patent" for rounded corners….

apple is so ridiculous…

In 2011 they sent their lawyers to threaten a woman which had just opened a little café in germany to help young mothers with their childs. She offered tea, coffee and her famous apple-cake.
So she named the café "Apfelkind" (= apple-child) and draw a logo of a RED apple with the silhouette of a baby inside AND the hand-written-style name "Apfelkind" beneath. NOBODY can be confused, there is just no similarity at all (look at the photo in the german article). Of course she wanted to protect her "brand" - because if her project would grow, she planned to sell bakery products and cups and so on with her logo on it. and perhaps open more cafés.

After not even 2 weeks she received threatening letters of apple´s lawyers…
(for the records: apple is the brand that stole the name and logo of apple records - it took until 2007 that they made a deal and finally payed for it!)
She thought then, this is a joke of someone - it was NOT. It was apple!
apple decision makers are reckless destroyers for profits sake and they are maniac.
(One day apple will perhaps go to court against GOD because he created the universe with apples on earth without apple´s permission?)

So, the poor young lady had no money to defend herself - but informed the press.
Many Tv-channels and national newspapers now informed the german public about the apple-methods of lawyer-terrorism on everyone.

http://gawker.com/5853402/apple-threatens-to-sue-tiny-german-cafe-whose-logo-is-an-apple

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtscha...fe-wehe-sie-veraeppeln-apples-apfel-1.1173840

It took TWO YEARS with the public getting more and more angry until apple stopped this ridiculous action…. in 2013 !!

 

[samcraig]

If they used patents without making a deal and the court found them guilty - then they should pay. End of story. They can contest it of course. Whether the holding company is using them or not is irrelevant. They either bought the patents or generated them themselves. That means time, money and resources were involved.

And I don't think Apple will be hurting from the payoff - but it's not just a "dent" - it's a decent amount and further depends on what deal they strike to use the patents (or if they aren't in violation anymore anyway).

 

[Bubba Satori]

I'm thinking they're not gonna get their mistrial.

Doubt it.

 

[Makosuke]

I don't know enough about this particular case to have any opinion on whether Apple really was willfully infringing on an in-use patent (although the fact that the patent was for VPN protocols and the lawsuit targeted FaceTime is odd) or this is yet another patent troll front. Over half a billion dollars sounds awfully high for VPN patents in a video conferencing and messaging service that is given away for free as a bundle with a device, but who knows, maybe these patents really are that critical to what Apple is doing.

But either way, the entire landscape of software patents is utterly broken, and really, really needs to be fixed.

Look at the case of the A/V encoding scheme of the widely-used AVC/H.264 codec and container format; it has 662 patents involved in the US alone, and 4331 patents globally, with ownership spread across 44 companies and organizations ranging from Apple to Fujitsu to Columbia University. (Seriously--the entire list is in this 93-page PDF on the MPEG LA's website.)

Do you really think that every one of those 4331 patents is unique and not a software idea independently developed by some other developer or researcher earlier that just didn't go through the time and expense to patent it? That requiring 662 patents from 44 companies in a single country just for a good video encoding scheme is healthy for competition and innovation? That there isn't a single conceptual idea in H264 that isn't theoretically covered by somebody else's patent that just never noticed?

And that's just a single technology. Honestly, I would be genuinely impressed if you could come up with an algorithm that wasn't theoretically covered by some existing software patent.

The system is out of control and silly.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Article Link: Apple Ordered to Pay $625 Million in VirnetX Patent Dispute

Good. Apple uses many patented technologies. They should pay the price for the appropriate licenses like everyone else. Or do you use pirated software?

 

[Lazy]

...

Why should some patents be encumbered by FRAND rules when the inventor or owner of the patent had no input on the standard and had no desire to even be involved with it? Sure, if the inventors or owners of the patents want to be members of the standard setting body, and want to have input and influence over the standard, then yes, FRAND should apply. But it shouldn't be automatic to all patents that cover a certain standard without some affirmative consent from the owners or inventors at the time. Why should organizations like IEEE just get to pick and choose which patents they want to infringe in their future standards without repercussion?

...

Patents are ultimately about promoting the public good. If some product society deems very important (oh, say mobile phones) can't be reasonably produced without using certain patents, then it's reasonable to declare those patents subject FRAND regardless of the wishes of the inventors. It's not like they won't get paid at all, and almost by definition there should be a lot of licensing fees. Considering another alternative is not to have patents at all that's not so bad.

 

[RadioGaGa1984]

Good. Apple has too much money, anyway.

Ha-ha... It is nice to see Apple eat their own ****... Suing everyone's ass off and now Apple get sued. Hopefully more company sue Apple and Apple will learn the lesson.

Two of the most asinine comments I've ever read here.

 

[Lazy]

If they used patents without making a deal and the court found them guilty - then they should pay. End of story. They can contest it of course. Whether the holding company is using them or not is irrelevant.

Yes, but they shouldn't pay up if they can get the patents ruled invalid. No idea of the soundness of the patents here but that might be Apple's best option now.

 

[69Mustang]

Rockstar Consortium karma?

 

[Karma*Police]

An ironic statement coming from Karma*Police

How is that ironic? Because you think Apple is a patent troll? Clearly you have no idea what a patent troll is.

 

[Norbs12]

Go outside, the graphics are amazing!

Funny sig =]

 

[cocky jeremy]

Apple really does have too much money. They need to give at least 1/2 of it away. Some to charities. Lots to me. There needs to be laws that limit how much money a person or company can have.

Um, no.

 

[LovingTeddy]

In many cases, it almost seems like Apple thinks it's cheaper to just roll the dice and see if anyone catches Apple infringing upon their patent(s). Then if Apple gets sued, just drag it out in court until a ruling is in Apple's favor, and if not just make some closed door deal to settle the matter... like with the Ericsson patent case: https://www.macrumors.com/2015/12/21/apple-ericsson-global-patent-license-agreement/

And yet... People here complains Samsung doing exactly samething...Apple is just as bad...

 

[lkrupp]

Apple really does have too much money. They need to give at least 1/2 of it away. Some to charities. Lots to me. There needs to be laws that limit how much money a person or company can have.

Let’s start with you. I want a law passed that limits your wealth to, oh, five hundred dollars. That’s all you are allowed to have. What do you think?

 

[69Mustang]

How is that ironic? Because you think Apple is a patent troll? Clearly you have no idea what a patent troll is.

Apple, along with Microsoft, Sony, Ericsson, and Blackberry performed a textbook troll move by forming Rockstar Consortium and subsequently suing Google, Samsung, Huawei and others. So yup. Patent troll in that instance.