The US is a democracy (people vote), a federation (many laws are decided at a state level), and a republic (politicians aren’t a separate social class).
Apple's expert previously testified that $0.06 per unit would be a reasonable warranty. That was a straight forward calculation based on the $200 million licensing agreement VirnetX entered into with Microsoft in 2010.which makes me wonder about the size of the damages verdict. after all, the test is what a reasonable royalty would be. How much would apple have paid virnetx at the time the infringement started, had it been aware it needed a license, given that they could apparently work around the issue quite easily?
Patent infringement is not a crime. That was the point.You're picking at nuts and bolts with trying to ascertain some validity into Apple's illegal behavior. At a minimum, Apple must pay punitive damages and royalties for IP infringement which is a crime. Don't lose sight of what and who is actually on trial here.
An invention becomes obvious the moment a patent application is published, if not earlier. That doesn't mean the protections provided to its inventors (or assignees) should end.I honestly don't care. IT moves so fast that a patent that may seem like a brilliant implementation in 2020 would have converged multiple ways by 2023, and is obvious by 2030.
Yeah. But that goes to whether the invention really was non-obvious to begin with. To the extent we have big picture problems with out patent system, I'd say they largely start with how we interpret that requirement. We perhaps grant patents for inventions which shouldn't be considered non-obvious.The question is whether the state of the art moved because someone had their investment protected by a patent, or if it would've happened anyway.
Personally, I would argue IT is one of the areas where patents do more harm than good.
I don't think Apple made a settlement offer, at least not one that we're aware of. What it did was argue that, if there was infringement (which Apple still effectively argues there wasn't because the patent claims are invalid), the reasonable royalty would be lower - something that would add up to $113 million.The fact that Apple offered a low sum, that was basically admitting yes we used your patent. However, because they offered a very low ball sum they were able to get out of the full amount asked in my opinion.
The difference between what they offered and was was asked was likely taken into consideration. It kept Apple from having to pay the full amount requested by VirnetX.
Maybe you could shed some light on the matter, instead of condescendingly citing two youtube channels and try to make it look like you made a point.Someone needs to learn about civil litigation. I recommended starting with easy-to-digest lawyer-run YouTube channels like LegalEagle or HoegLaw.
The jury would have heard expert testimony from each side relating to what a reasonable royalty would be. So, no, they wouldn't just pull a number out of the air without having heard what each side thought would be appropriate.They need some baseline.
That Apple don‘t owe punitive damages for their use of another company’s IP. Oh, wait...Patent infringement is not a crime. That was the point.
VirnetX needs to go down. Just saying...
Parasites...
The US is a democracy (people vote), a federation (many laws are decided at a state level), and a republic (politicians aren’t a separate social class).
Well, I'm not saying it's good at any of those things.It definitely is not a ”real“ democracy. Just look at your election system 🤣
Do you think it cost them $500 million? Because, if not, seems like an ordinary person would choose to spend whatever they spent and not pay a reasonable royalty that ended up being $500 million.
In patent law, to determine damages, you imagine a hypothetical negotiation.I doubt it even cost $500,000 (if you remove another order of magnitude, it starts becoming plausible), but I'm not sure what point you're making.
Apple knowingly violated patent law and accepted that by offering to pay 112 million. Apple regularly violates patents and just sees it as opportunity cost, "is violating this patent cheaper than us developing it?". Which isn't fair to the patent holder, and they get away from some freebies because smaller companies don't have the resources to take the Apple giant to court.
Call it trolling, but a patent is a patent and if they made it first, Apple needs to honor that. If the shoe were on the other foot, Apple would crucify the company that violated them.
But if no one challenges patents, they stick. Even bad patents. I'm not going to continue to wade into the did Apple do wrong, or not, but say that, YES there are 'bad patents', and the only way to get then rescinded/quashed is to violate the patent, and put up a good defense for doing so.
Then, of course, if there was such cheap workaround, Apple would have employed it long ago.In patent law, to determine damages, you imagine a hypothetical negotiation.
The hypothetical negotiation I am imagining involves Apple saying “that patent looks neat, but rather than taking a license to your patent, we will just work around it. It will cost us a million to do that.” In that case there is a strong argument that the damages would be capped at a million dollars.
This may or may not have been raised by apple’s experts. There may be some strategic reason it wasn’t. But it’s very common to make this sort of argument in patent cases.
But they did, didn’t they? My understanding is there is no allegation that the current version infringes.Then, of course, if there was such cheap workaround, Apple would have employed it long ago.
There's more going on in that article.Here's 1 fact:
I actually linked that EXACT page if you even bothered to read the first page of the comments on this thread
![]()
Apple Ordered to Pay VirnetX Another $502.8 Million for Patent Infringement
FaceTime was a "peer to peer" implementation which would have cost Apple little to no money to run the service. By having it peer to peer, it was entirely possible for an open standard to happen. Since the peer to peer method was infringing on VirnetX's patents, Apple had to redo FaceTime...forums.macrumors.com
And if you read the article that you linked yourself, you would see Apple changed it "because it had been found guilty of infringing patents owned by VirnetX."
Congratulations. You proved my point.![]()
I stand by what I said.There's more going on in that article.