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
That might be true. But if the current (stupid) patent laws allows patent trolls to sit on patents without legally requiring them to be active product designers/manufacturers, then the law is still on the troll's side. In conclusion, the patent trolls are simply using the law to their advantage. Patent laws are outdated and need a huge revamp.
I would love to be a juror on one of these trials. These jurors probably think the money is coming out air and there are no consequences. They don’t realize the costs of all products go up because of patent trolls, who don’t contribute anything useful to society. Anyone can dream up such broad ideas and patent them, which should not be allowed.
Bingo. VirneteX will be lucky to receive any of this within the next 5-10 years. Bruce and Apple legal will find an exit. The award is asinine. The Judge is in conflict. The decision is flawed.
[doublepost=1454554766][/doublepost]
Nice idea. But the assets acquired would not equal the cost of the accelerant used.
Well, no.. The case began in 2010 and my prediction here is that Apple would probably settle for slightly less than $625M in a couple of years. Unlike other patent trolls, VirnetX patents have been tested and the company has been quite victorious in courts.
This has to be two of the most clueless, and asinine comments I've ever read on MacRumors. Presuming both of you are in the US, it explains why Sanders is getting so much support.
Apple, the corporation, doesn't "have" money. They simply represent their shareholders. The SHAREHOLDERS "have" that money, because after Apple's secured creditors, they have first claim on Apple's assets.
Who are Apple's shareholders? They are people like me: I own a handful of shares in my retirement account. But, 60% of Apple stock is held by institutions: mutual funds and pension plans owned by people that had the foresight to set aside a portion of their paycheck each week. Any money taken away or given away by Apple would be money from the pockets of people that are just trying to plan for their future, rather than depending on someone else to provide for them.
The "insiders" at Apple own a negligible percentage of the company. You can find that information, and more, at this link: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AAPL+Major+Holders
If you want some of Apple's money and share in their future success, you can "buy in" by simply investing in their stock. However, that requires you to get off your butt to earn that initial stake of money, and risk losing some or all if it. That's a lot harder than whining and complaining, but that's what successful investors do.
Apple (and the rest of the world) doesn't owe you a damn thing. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll take responsibility for your own life and build a better future for yourself and your family.
FRAND makes patents less valuable because its an encumbrance, just like any encumbrance (easement, right of way, etc) on your land makes the land less valuable. FRAND says you can't exclude certain parties, and you have to agree to certain preset royalties. This is great if you were at the negotiating table when the terms were set, but unfair if you weren't.
I'm not against the FRAND doctrine, and the companies you listed join together and work together to promote standards, and that is a good thing. But they join together willingly and knowingly. They know the terms when they do so. But these companies shouldn't have the right to bring in someone else't patents into the mix without consent or notice, and the owners of those other patents certainly shouldn't be forced to join if they don't want to.
The best analogy I can think of is if an utility company has an easement to go across your land whenever they want, that is like a FRAND encumbrance on a patent. It is fine if the owner agreed to it and got something out of the deal, but it's totally unfair for the utility to just declare they have an easement to enter the owner's land whenever they want without the owner having any input on the matter.
The touch sensitive bezel is in almost all of the latest iphone designs for the last 3 generations.
because they can't deal with facts or truth.
[doublepost=1454607965][/doublepost]
Not sure what this article has anything to do with it. The article starts with a completely irrelevant account of how Samsung operates in corrupt 3rd world gov't (poisoning the well logical fallacy). It's also fairly clear that the article is partly written by Apple's lawyers at MoFo (Morrison Foerster) -- who also represented Pioneer against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas.
Last edited:
You think the shareholders don't care about the share price?
Do you own any mutual funds, perhaps in a retirement account? Take a look at the top holdings -- if it's an equity fund, chances are that AAPL is a major holding. If it's simply an S&P index fund, it absolutely holds AAPL.
Even if you only have a pension (company- or state-operated), there's a good chance the pension fund owns at least some shares of AAPL.
Well, the appeals courts usually do, but in this case, they already remanded the case back to Texas where the jury almost doubled the damage award. Again, VirnetX's has successfuly sued many companies before and won. Apple can't win on the (in)validity of VirnetX's patents -- as I've said VirnetX's patents have been tested in courts. So rather than fighting the actual patents claims, Apple is trying to find errors in court proceedings (ie, mistrial, flawed jury instruction, etc) to turn this around.
Last edited:
Is it?
News to me...
So you can say alter the volume of the phone by sliding your finger over the dead black screen surround?
As shown here:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...-gain-an-intelligent-bezel-in-the-future.html
Yes ?
Your example is different than this situation. This company's sole purpose is to profit from lawsuits.... Period! Why do you think they use Texas courts that are more biased to patent trolls??
Personally I think your vision is a bit skewed.
Still... When I originally looked at this, I was wondering how Apple or any other company that was sued was going to defend themselves.
btw - there is a significant population that comments on ARS that comment prior to reading the article but post reading the headline.
what do you mean Xerox was doing "nothing" with it? They developed the first commercial product, the Star, largely based on the Altos invented at PARC. Sure they weren't a commercial hit, but that doesn't mean you could "steal" it because they weren't as successful and it is an asinine logic. Apple's Lisa which came out after the Star was also a failure and the Macintosh was better, but was not a smashing success that you make it out to be -- in fact the sales was so bad that it significantly attributed to Steve Jobs's ouster in the 80's.
[doublepost=1454609669][/doublepost]
You usually don't pay taxes on anything you win in court cases. Apple pays 1.8% on oversea profit via double irish with a dutch sandwich, but pays all US taxes earned in the US.
Last edited:
"We don't like people stealing our stuff."-TIM COOK
http://virnetx.com/company/patents/legal-disclaimer/
You have to click OK to leave their website, and go to uspto.gov
Here is the text:
Legal Disclaimer
This is a hyperlink to an unrelated third party website. It is provided for your convenience and for informational purposes only. VirnetX assumes no responsibility for any circumstances arising out of the use, misuse, interpretation or application of any information or other material provided on this third party website.
I hope they won't sue me for reposting their legal disclaimer..
You have to click OK to leave their website, and go to uspto.gov
Here is the text:
Legal Disclaimer
This is a hyperlink to an unrelated third party website. It is provided for your convenience and for informational purposes only. VirnetX assumes no responsibility for any circumstances arising out of the use, misuse, interpretation or application of any information or other material provided on this third party website.
I hope they won't sue me for reposting their legal disclaimer..
The thing is infringing is almost impossible to avoid theses days. I've run across this several times as it seems people are patenting just about anything they can think of. In a recent search I ran across a huge number of patents filed by Google that patents things like a method to turn on a light switch and have a remote light turn on (in a nut shell).
There are many problems with the patent system... one, companies are patenting everything and anything. To the point whereas a developer, you're probably going to infringe on someone else just doing something you would consider common knowledge. Second, are patent trolls.... of course, they are the leach of the industry and cost companies millions in what were once abandoned patents. Third... companies can blatantly copy and steal knowing it will take years for any settlement to happen and roll the dice hoping they can debunk the patent in the first place. Apple is a huge victim of this as everyone jumped on copying the original iPhone and iOS when it was clearly a very different approach to what others were doing at the time.
So... just about every high-tech company is guilty in both directions... the only evil ones are the Trolls and the companies that are blatant about their infringements. Where does Apple fall in this? I really think somewhere in the middle.... but then again, just about everyone does.
Last edited:
You do realize that other companies have licensed this. That makes the "not used" factually incorrect.
Aside from the fact your use of the term "patent troll" in this case is incorrect.
No, it's not. You can check the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry for a "general definition": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll