Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Ordered to Pay VirnetX Another $502.8 Million for Patent Infringement

EssentialParado said:
When Steve Jobs announced FaceTime on stage he said it would be open source. ...and then VirnetX came along.
Click to expand...
Glad to see someone remembers, it’s because of this greedy troll FaceTime never seen the light of day as open source just imagine how hand it would be today if all devices ran the open source FaceTime in 2020 what we have today is a mess of incompatible formats

Apple Safari made it’s engine open source WebKit that has benefit all like they be no Chrome if it wasn’t for Safari makes one wonder what FaceTime could of been today if open source
 
  • Wow
Reactions: PinkyMacGodess
cmaier said:
Not true.

Inter partes review - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

2210-Request for Ex Parte Reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 302

www.uspto.gov www.uspto.gov
Click to expand...

Under post-2012 inter partes review, petitioners must demonstrate a "reasonable likelihood that" the party challenging the patent at issue "would prevail" in the dispute, rather than requiring that it demonstrate a "substantial new question of patentability."
Click to expand...

In some jurisdictions, bad patents are upheld because crappy judges enable them. Some jurisdictions, patent holders win in extremely high numbers. But whatever...
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
In some jurisdictions, bad patents are upheld because crappy judges enable them. Some jurisdictions, patent holders win in extremely high numbers. But whatever...
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what your point is.

The thing you quoted appears to be related to whether the PTO decides to institute an inter partes review after it has been sought. In 2019, that happened more than 60% of the time. For computer-related patents, the institution rate is around 66%.

Once instituted, 81% of the time one or more patent claims is found to be invalid.


This is a much better rate of success than you’ll find if you wait to be sued and then try to fight it out in district court.
 
bLackjackj said:
Where is the trolling & who are you calling a moronic monkey, Lol...Apple had offered to pay 112m for using patented technology!

You cannot just take patented technology owned by whomever & use it for your own self gain without paying...🙄
Click to expand...

Companies prefer convenience,, they "don't always have time" to see who owns what... But maybe they should care..The outcome doesn't look good otherwise.
 
dogslobber said:
That Apple don‘t owe punitive damages for their use of another company’s IP. Oh, wait...
Click to expand...
I don't know if this response is supposed to have anything to do with my pointing out that patent infringement isn't a crime.

But, to be clear, Apple doesn't owe punitive damages in this case. Even if we describe the enhanced damages which can be ordered for willful infringement as punitive damages, there aren't such damages in this case. Judge Schroeder already ruled on that issue. What Apple will owe, if it ends up owing anything, will be a reasonable royalty for the IP in question - e.g., what this jury determined a reasonable royalty will be. That is to say, Apple will have to pay what it in theory would have had to pay if it had just negotiated a royalty with VirnetX, plus perhaps interest.
 
Carnegie said:
I don't know if this response is supposed to have anything to do with my pointing out that patent infringement isn't a crime.

But, to be clear, Apple doesn't owe punitive damages in this case. Even if we describe the enhanced damages which can be ordered for willful infringement as punitive damages, there aren't such damages in this case. Judge Schroeder already ruled on that issue. What Apple will owe, if it ends up owing anything, will be a reasonable royalty for the IP in question - e.g., what this jury determined a reasonable royalty will be. That is to say, Apple will have to pay what it in theory would have had to pay if it had just negotiated a royalty with VirnetX, plus perhaps interest.
Click to expand...
A criminal organization being forced to pay royalties for a patent isn't any punitive damages. What V.X's lawyers should have done is for filed an injunction to prevent Apple shipping products with the patent-infringed IP. I've not read the legal documents to form a more coherent analysis as I'm merely going off third hand information which may not be entirely accurate.
 
dogslobber said:
A criminal organization being forced to pay royalties for a patent isn't any punitive damages. What V.X's lawyers should have done is for filed an injunction to prevent Apple shipping products with the patent-infringed IP. I've not read the legal documents to form a more coherent analysis as I'm merely going off third hand information which may not be entirely accurate.
Click to expand...

to get an injunction they would need to show injury that couldn’t be compensated for by money. They had no such injury. Very very difficult for a company to get an injunction based on patent infringement when they aren’t competing in that market. They can’t argue that they are irrevocably losing market share, etc.
 
Does Apple get sued in East Texas since the have a store there? What is the greater loss for Apple, money in all the patent cases or loss of money for closing the store? What does the state of Texas get from all these patent cases compared to business with Apple?

Just want to be more informed, thanks.
 
dogslobber said:
A criminal organization being forced to pay royalties for a patent isn't any punitive damages. What V.X's lawyers should have done is for filed an injunction to prevent Apple shipping products with the patent-infringed IP. I've not read the legal documents to form a more coherent analysis as I'm merely going off third hand information which may not be entirely accurate.
Click to expand...
VirnetX asked for injunctive relief and it was denied.
 
cmaier said:
to get an injunction they would need to show injury that couldn’t be compensated for by money. They had no such injury. Very very difficult for a company to get an injunction based on patent infringement when they aren’t competing in that market. They can’t argue that they are irrevocably losing market share, etc.
Click to expand...
Well... they can't credibly argue that. But they did argue that.
 
czoli said:
It's is not Open because Apple does not want it open and their right to do so but does not see how it relates to patent infringement.
Click to expand...
no, if they didnt want to open it up, they wouldn’t have announced it.

facetime used to be run on a peer to peer protocol, now it’s relayed through akamai servers because of this violation which makes it impractical to be an open protocol
 
To everyone still thinking that having a patent is always so legitimate, please at least watch this:
 
DaveN said:
Read the Bloomberg article people. As usual, it is the inbreds in Tyler Texas who decided the case and VirnetX is a publicly traded company where one fifth of the employees are related to the president of the company. The tech was invented by SAIC on contract to the US government and then execs at SAIC spun it off for their own company. Many of the patents were ruled invalid but Apple didn’t get them invalidated in time. Definitely a broken system.
Click to expand...
Classy comment. What leads you to conclude such a statement?
 
farewelwilliams said:
no, if they didnt want to open it up, they wouldn’t have announced it.

facetime used to be run on a peer to peer protocol, now it’s relayed through akamai servers because of this violation which makes it impractical to be an open protocol
Click to expand...
Still does not see how this prevents to be open or interoperable. With all due respect I think you are jumping to conclusions.
 
meaningego said:
To everyone still thinking that having a patent is always so legitimate, please at least watch this:
Click to expand...
The Patents systems has its flaws but does this prove anything about this specific case ? Not really. It is not for this forum really to decide here. I only see comments of people taking sides just because they like or dislike apple without actually knowing anything on the specific matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back