Man the barricades.
Fix bayonets.
Skeurmorphic the haters.
Long live the King.
I mean the Queen.
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 Ordered to Pay $625 Million in VirnetX Patent Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Man the barricades.
Fix bayonets.
Skeurmorphic the haters.
Long live the King.
I mean the Queen.
I thought it was ironic that you stood up for Apple infringing on someone else's patent instead of going through the motions... bad karma.
I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll just ask. Do you think Apple did no wrong here? Remember, this is the same company that sued Samsung for rounded corners. If you think that's justified, then you must think this is justified, otherwise it's a bit of a double standard, no? Patents are patents, that's why licensing exists.
I'll refer you to this comment: VirnetX developed the tech for ad hoc VPNs back around 2002. Since then that system has become the standard for secure communication over 4G networks and they have been trying to get companies like Apple to license the tech. But Apple, and others, have been just developing their own software that does the same thing (and in Apple's case trying to patent it in 2008 only to find that VirnetX already owned the patents). Is VirnetX suppose to just rollover and let Apple use the tech for free? No, they are using the legal system to force Apple to do what it should have done in the first place.
Great rebuttals to some really ignorant perspectives. Apple apologists often will take any stance to bash anyone or any company that isn't Apple...and they often do this by taking stances without realizing Apple is guilty of doing the same.
On the contrary, I think there are a lot of members on this site that think Apple can do no wrong.
We really need clear rules on
Legitimate companies that are in the business of producing products or services monitor the patent activities of their competitors to avoid infringing on patents. They do this because it takes a lot of $$$$ to bring products to market.
Patent trolls on the other hand are not competitors. They produce nothing so any productive companies have no way of finding out about infringements until after a lot of investments are made.
And since the US doesn't have a 'loser pays' system like Europe. Patent trolling has become very lucrative here.
Legitimate companies that are in the business of producing products or services monitor the patent activities of their competitors to avoid infringing on patents. They do this because it takes a lot of $$$$ to bring products to market.
Patent trolls on the other hand are not competitors. They produce nothing so any productive companies have no way of finding out about infringements until after a lot of investments are made.
And since the US doesn't have a 'loser pays' system like Europe. Patent trolling has become very lucrative here.
This place has become absolutely infested with irrational and overly emotional Apple haters that hold some sort of deep grudge against the company, the people that run the company, and the people that don't hate the company.
Take a look at a website with rational commenters like Ars Technica- the comments on the parallel article over there are almost universally against the jury's decision, and the people that even try to pull the kind of BS that drags this site down are getting downvoted to oblivion- and therefore nobody has to read that drivel because it automatically gets hidden.
To be clear, I love MacRumors and I think the staff and moderators are beyond excellent... but many of the users have simply gone off the deep end.
That is a perfectly fair point, but in what way does your comment invalidate the last part of mine? If I own a patent but "don't produce anything", does that not give me the right to sue a company for using my patented technology without paying for a license?
Why do paranoids have so many enemies?
Good. Intellectual property had value and it should be respected and protected. The court system allows for this. Just because you control the wheels of commerce in an industry doesn't mean you can simply take someone else's protected ideas and profit from them on a whim.
Much of this discussion thread is anti-Apple. It's curious to see so many ignorant people in one room.
Apple is not evil. At least I believe they are good. They don't intentionally infringe on patents with a "who cares" attitude. If, and only if, they do walk the line of not paying licensing fees for some known tech, then it's because they are adhering to some higher standards, such as refusing to pay because the asking price is too much, or it will somehow hurt the consumers through unnecessary price increases. Apple is not perfect, but they have demonstrated high standards again and again. Their entire business is built on those principles.
If Apple is guilty of infringement to this scum-patents troll, then I believe it's purely a coincidence and they did not know such a patent existed.
Two separate people, or groups of people, CAN come up with the same idea, or solution to a problem, without ever having met. It is possible, and I think the patent system fails to take this into consideration. Maybe it needs to be easier to match patents against ideas without forking over 10's of thousands of dollars just to do patent research? At the end of the day, I believe the system is broken and abused.
You only just realised this? That's why all the Apple fans moved to AppleInsider.
Ah yes, Texas, first you give us GWB, then Ted Cruz and now there are the patent trolls. Honestly, it appears that the gnostics were right, this reality is actually hell.
Sneaky Apple... The jury decided because Apple still thinks that despite the order Apple was found to guilty. (yes, may be used but what to do think this is ? it may be not criminal"per say" but its still the law), Apple reckons the jury was confused ?
Over what, a spaceship campus going by ? If they reckon the jury was confused, why would have the judge allowed a clueless bunch of people ? Apple just wants to win... that's what it boils down to... No point in Apple hiding the true facts, but they are good at that.. And i'm even better
Over what, a spaceship campus going by ? If they reckon the jury was confused, why would have the judge allowed a clueless bunch of people ? Apple just wants to win... that's what it boils down to... No point in Apple hiding the true facts, but they are good at that.. And i'm even better
That's right. Companies should not be allowed to have too much money!! It is unhealthy for them and for us. Maybe few millions yes, but billions? Ridiculous!! I think they should give at least 90% of their money away. Maybe give half of that money to patent trolls!
[doublepost=1454567085][/doublepost]
Oh please, don't even get me started on that! Samsung is called copycat for a reason. They don't just copy, they make the products look like a clone!
How does that BS urban legend still persist? After the release of the first iPhone, Apple was showered with patent lawsuits, and only then did they start shooting back.
Today they were declared as the most valuable company on planet Earth, they have ALL the money
What nonsense. If your 'idea' does not lead to a specific product, then you shouldn't be able to make money out of it. There is a lot of material on the debate about software patterns — look it up. It is one thing to protect a particular design or implementation, but stuff like this https://www.google.com/patents/US7921211 ? Sorry, this is just ridiculous. Any graduate-level compsci student can design a system like that (and will, if needed) without any knowledge of that particular patent. I am sure that the software I wrote infringes on dozens of trivial patens like those. It doesn't have anything to do with inventing. Its simply trying to rip people off.
P.S. About startups and losses. If you have a startup that develops a highly involved, specific image analysis algorithm and that startup goes bust, sure, they can and should be able to sell their algorithm to whoever is interested. But if all their work boils down to a patent along the lines of "extracting information from images by evaluating a statistics over sub-areas of the image and subsequently applying decision theory" — that is plain and simple trying to cheat people off their money. See how long it took me to come up with a patent like that?
Last edited:
In that case, come and live in the Netherlands, average tax (including VAT, extra taxes on cars, CO2, you name it) it 57%
If you earn more than € 50k you'll pay 52% income tax alone. And 21% VAT and an extra 25%+ on any car you buy and... And... And...
The advantage is that we have a really decent social security system, health care is good, we don't have much crime, usually polite police-officers and politicians that don't do much (harm either). It perhaps isn't as golden as it was a decade ago, but it certainly isn't as bad as the USA where some people need food stamps... (What was it, 45+ million people?) 60% of the people don't have $1000 in savings.
But I do agree with you that there is starting to get a real difference (not to call it a canyon) between what people (90%) earn and what the companies and top 1-5% earn. The profits of companies haven't become much smaller, they sacked people, cut-backs and did all kind of (barely legal) tax-tricks. And this is certainly right for the company, but as a whole society, it creates a negative spiral that eventually also will affect the very same companies. In the end you'll need consumers to buy your products. Or your client-clients' products if you are only B2B.
Back to the topic on hand. Isn't there is something fundamentally flawed if people are investing money in patents for the sole purpose of making a profit from (by threatening with) lawsuits?
Investing money in patents? Fine!
Starting a lawsuit when somebody doesn't want to play according to the rules and is infringing on your IP? your absolute right!
Being rewarded damages when infringed on? Perfect!
But the system is broken if it the sole activity of trading and suing on unused patents becomes a "viable and profitable business model"!
I think the problem can be solve rather easily: show how much damage you have really had, when you start a lawsuit
So if you haven't made any product, can't show any cost of having developed anything and can't show you lost market share, there is no damage.
And as always the devil is in the details, but if you start with this simple starting point, it might solve itself rather quickly!
The problem is simply that the patent system was conceived before the computing age and the original idea of patents cannot be reliably applied to software patents. Patents should protect particular non-trivial designs and products, not generic ideas along the lines "a container on wheels that can be used to transport goods". The overwhelming majority of software patents are akin to patenting a generic novel plot or a poem structure.