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

[sniffies]

I smell too many VirnetX employees in the comments

 

[Art Mark]

Apple "offered" 113M$, so clearly, they know that they violated a patent ... hence, no-one really should complain that Apple has to pay, yes, maybe about the amount, but not the fact that they violated a patent.
I know this is not what people here want to hear ...

Ahhh, no. They simply wanted out of a stupid case. I'm pretty sure the settlement wouldn't have said they did violate a patent. And This sh**ball company doesn't do untying but shakedown other companies. The company needs to be stopped and the folks making all the money from this should be held accountable.

 

[jz0309]

If a corporation just exists to exploit patents, they deserve to lose. I remember reading an article about some of the damned absurd patent trolls that have popped up. Some corporations have patented some absurd things, and wom billions, only to be overturned by later courts. Imagine someone successfully patenting a device that could encompass 'a pointing and selection device that interacts with a CRT screen'.

Would they be able to sue every company that ever manufactured a mouse? How about a 'light pen'? How many people use CRT's? How many people use 'light pens' anymore? How many people have ever touched a 'light pen'?

Should that ambiguous of a patent result in a judgement against every mouse manufacturer? I say of course not, but there are jurisdictions that would have no problem siding with the patent holder.

Patent abuse IS a thing. It has to be addressed. It has to be ended. We can't have nice things in a lot of circumstances because of patent abuse. If you have a patent, and aren't making use of it in a product your corporation sells, you should not be able to sue other corporations for using your patent. Use it or lose it... *shrug*

these guys are operating within the law, that's their right. No argument that the law should be modified but until that point ... Apple violated a patent period.
this case went to the Supreme Court, read below:

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Apple appeal in patent fight with VirnetX

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear Apple Inc's bid to avoid paying about $440 million in damages for using patent licensing firm VirnetX Inc's internet security technology without permission in features such as FaceTime video calling.

www.reuters.com

And today, even Apple files patents on things that they are not planning to take into production, you find examples in the news stories even on this site, and many many other companies do the same ... one of Qualcomm's larger biz model is to own patents and claim royalties, remember that there was a battle between Qualcomm and Apple?

 

[jz0309]

Ahhh, no. They simply wanted out of a stupid case. I'm pretty sure the settlement wouldn't have said they did violate a patent. And This sh**ball company doesn't do untying but shakedown other companies. The company needs to be stopped and the folks making all the money from this should be held accountable.

read the link I posted in this post #53
do a little research on what has been happening here, Apple 113M$ "offer" reflected a lower royalty fee than what the jury decided on - royalty for a settlement????

 

[69Mustang]

I haven't looked at VirnetX's financial filings in a while. But the last time I did, it had no regular revenue to speak of. It was clear that essentially the entire current value of the company was based on what the market expected it to get from its suits against Apple.

So there wouldn't have been anything worth paying for, even assuming the owners would have been willing to sell at a price close to the company's market value. And even if Apple bought the company, that wouldn't save it from having to pay substantial portions of these judgments. VirnetX doesn't get to keep all of the money it will get from these suits. It has the right to sue for infringement of these patents based on agreements it made with the patents' (previous) owners. Those agreements require VirnetX to pay part of whatever it recovers to those owners.

There are no previous owners. VirnetX owns those patents lock, stock, and 2 smoking barrels. Their Chief Science Officer, Dr. R.D. Short is credited as co-inventor on almost every patent in their portfolio. VirnetX gets to keep all of the money.

 

[cmaier]

Why was the jury asked to determine a royalty amount? Was the jury made up of people that specialize in licensing, or did they just pull this number out of a hat?

Typically expert witnesses with backgrounds in economics testify as to the appropriate reasonable royalty.

 

[cmaier]

Patent trolls!

Just abolish software patents in the USA like it is in most (if not all) of the rest of the world.
There's no point in having software patents.

There is little difference between the patentability of software in the US and the rest of the world.

 

[cmaier]

Well apple sued Samsung for rounded corners on their icons.

no they didn’t

 

[Carnegie]

these guys are operating within the law, that's their right. No argument that the law should be modified but until that point ... Apple violated a patent period.
this case went to the Supreme Court, read below:

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Apple appeal in patent fight with VirnetX

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear Apple Inc's bid to avoid paying about $440 million in damages for using patent licensing firm VirnetX Inc's internet security technology without permission in features such as FaceTime video calling.

www.reuters.com

And today, even Apple files patents on things that they are not planning to take into production, you find examples in the news stories even on this site, and many many other companies do the same ... one of Qualcomm's larger biz model is to own patents and claim royalties, remember that there was a battle between Qualcomm and Apple?

To be clear, that denial of cert by the Supreme Court was in a different case. One of the issues there was Apple arguing that effect should be given, in that infringement case, to the (affirmed) decision from the PTAB to invalidate some of the patent claims which Apple had been found to have infringed. The Supreme Court decided not to hear that case.

They'll likely be a similar issue with this judgment. The patent claims involved have been invalidated by the PTAB. It will be a race of sorts with VirnetX hoping to have court proceedings (e.g. at the Federal Circuit) in this infringement case concluded before the court proceedings (e.g. at the Federal Court) in its appeal of the PTAB invalidation are concluded. Apple will hope the opposite happens. If the PTAB invalidation becomes final before this infringement case becomes final, Apple may be able to get this judgment overturned.

 

[Carnegie]

There are no previous owners. VirnetX owns those patents lock, stock, and 2 smoking barrels. Their Chief Science Officer, Dr. R.D. Short is credited as co-inventor on almost every patent in their portfolio. VirnetX gets to keep all of the money.

Not according to VirnetX's SEC filings, to include the assignment agreement it entered into with SAIC (later Leidos).

Mr. Short is indeed listed as an inventor for the two patents at issue in this case. But that doesn't mean he or VirnetX have always been the owners - i.e., in this context, the assignees - of those patents. The '135 patent was originally assigned to SAIC. A parent application for what became the '151 patent was originally filed by SAIC (as assignee). That patent and that application are part of what VirnetX acquired certain rights to as part of the agreement I previously referred to.

It shouldn't be hard to find that agreement (and amendments thereto) if you want to read them for yourself.

 

[DummyFool]

Patents were not meant to protect an investor class, it was to protect an active corporation's products from being stolen and used by another corporation in their products. I don't think those that originated the whole patent process thought that a corporation would excel at buying patents from other (bankrupt) corporations, turn patent defense into their 'product', and use well paid lawyers to defend them, even if they themselves know they are crap patents.

Some of the patents I've read sound like they were written by a three year-old. They are so vague, and vast that they could almost be stretched to encompass damn near anything. And THAT should be illegal.

Here's an example of a patent troll in action. Imagine, coming up with a patent that could be stretched to include people checking the status of their packages sent through USPS. You are sued for allowing people to see where their package is, even though you settled that dispute with USPS directly! Imagine the gall, and balls to assert that just because you allowed the USPS website to search for shipping information without demanding a monetary judgement, you are suing everyone else using their own server side scripts to essentially do the same damned thing! Yeah, but often very ignorant courts, and equally ignorant jurists are trusted to rule in cases such as these. Some jurisdictions also make a killing off of the 'gifts' of litigants in cases where they know darn well they have a snowballs chance in hell of winning in any other jurisdiction.

Organizations that troll patents are a very huge concern for companies in this country. Did you hear of the troll that sued auto manufacturers for the delay feature in windshield wipers? Its epic. They tried to sue everyone they could, and made a mint doing it. Something so obvious, something so easy to due multiple ways, and yet nearly everyone that did 'it' (time delayed wiper action) was subject, and threatened by that parasite. I read that some companies settled, payed the ransom, to continue doing what they were doing. A simple feedback loop with a capacitor, that triggered the wiper motor to cycle. Yikes...

Big corporations patent anything they can regardless of the fact it might ever be use in a product. Because patents can be use as a weapon, use as leverage with an other tech company (which happens all the time) or make money or make a product. I have no more sympathy for it then for a patent troll that only use it to make money.

 

[applefan69]

You may not have been paying attention, but this whole thing has been answered. It may not be the answer you want it to be, but it has been emphatically answered on multiple occasions. The courts have sided with VirnetX over and over. If you're genuinely curious about the case, and not just rhetorically "needing answers", there's ample information about the cases and conclusions. All right on the cyber.

Yes of course I can search the internet for answers. I think I was trying to bring the real questions we all need to be asking into the discussion.

 

[69Mustang]

Not according to VirnetX's SEC filings, to include the assignment agreement it entered into with SAIC (later Leidos).

Mr. Short is indeed listed as an inventor for the two patents at issue in this case. But that doesn't mean he or VirnetX have always been the owners - i.e., in this context, the assignees - of those patents. The '135 patent was originally assigned to SAIC. A parent application for what became the '151 patent was originally filed by SAIC (as assignee). That patent and that application are part of what VirnetX acquired certain rights to as part of the agreement I previously referred to.

It shouldn't be hard to find that agreement (and amendments thereto) if you want to read them for yourself.

Hmm. I could be wrong. I thought Short was listed on the original patents from his time at SAIC.

 

[milk242]

I’m pretty sure these large companies could lobby successfully to change the patent laws but I have a feeling they get a good enough advantage with the way the laws are now that they don’t bother.

 

[69Mustang]

Yes of course I can search the internet for answers. I think I was trying to bring the real questions we all need to be asking into the discussion.

The questions you're asking have been answered in multiple articles. No one really needs to be asking them again. These cases are a decade old and running. They're basically trying to figure out the total Apple's going to have to pay at this point.

 

[Carnegie]

Hmm. I could be wrong. I thought Short was listed on the original patents from his time at SAIC.

He is. But the one patent I referred to was assigned to SAIC, and an earlier application for the other patent was filed by SAIC. The inventor listed on a patent (or application) isn’t necessarily the effective owner.

VirnetX acquired rights to a bunch of patents and patent applications from SAIC in, IIRC, 2006.

 

[ghanwani]

.

 

[insomniac86]

patent trolls.

they're the reason FaceTime isn't "open" BTW.

Correct. Whoever disagrees with your statement needs to do some research.

FaceTime was originally going to be open. However due to changes in which Apple needed to proxy/establish the connection (to work around the infringement), they decided to limit this off to Apple devices.

 

[kstotlani]

All this mess started when Einstein decided to become a scientist rather than do a real job.

 

[klunernet]

Apple did its usual - committed ip theft/infringment then when sued tried to make a low-ball insulting offer and it's come back to bite them in the ass twice. El oh el

In other parts of the world (like Europe) software patents are not allowed. It’s an abstract idea that is patented mostly, not a genuine invention / innovation. An on demand VPN is a logical thing, a clever trick for usability. it’s nice, but that is it.

software patents hurt innovation. (Which is why the EU keeps them out)

 

[The Man]

So three of the four patents at issue have been invalidated, but Apple still has to pay up front because that invalidation is challenged -- and thus it could take years for a final decision to be made. And in the last appeals court, Apple couldn't argue that the patents at issue were invalidated, because it has been Apple's legal argument from day one that these patents should never have been issued in the first place. The court of appeals ruled that while the patents may have been invalidated, that argument can't be made in this case anymore, because such claims failed in earlier cases. So it doesn't matter if the actual patents have been invalidated since, Apple simply can't make the case anymore. Weird.

Or maybe I am not understanding the case. Anyway, it is a mess, and in the end, and Apple may finally be 80% right. So FaceTime could arguably have been an open standard thing.

 

[wigby]

Is that confirmed? I feel like this situation wouldn't impact the openness of FaceTime. Just as iMessage is only an AppleOS feature, FaceTime was always meant to be a feature strictly across Apple's ecosystem.

Steve Jobs publicly stated that FaceTime was designed to be an open standard. It’s been well documented for a long time that this lawsuit is the main reason why Apple could never open up FaceTime as they promised.

 

[bollman]

It has never occurred to any Apple fan in this forum, that the reason VirnetX hold these patents is because Apple (and sooo many other big companies) refuse to license and rather go to court?

Small innovative companies patents their ideas in the hope that some big company will use their tech and they will reap the reward of their hard work. Instead, big tech just give them the middle finger with the classic "so sue us", knowing full well that small companies have absolutely no chance against the army of lawyers of big tech.

Their only option may be to sell their patents to vultures like VirnetX. "Patent trolls" gets their patents from somewhere, usually companies bankrupt or soon-to-be, it's not like they come up with the ideas (hence "patent trolls").

Sooooo, if Apple, and other big tech companies would ever decide to license in the first place instead of waiting to get sued by a "patent troll", innovation could happen outside of big tech, and I think everyone would be better off.

 

[ani4ani]

Steve Jobs publicly stated that FaceTime was designed to be an open standard. It’s been well documented for a long time that this lawsuit is the main reason why Apple could never open up FaceTime as they promised.

well another example of Apple giving away somebody else’s property under the guise of Apple benevolence? If FaceTime was to be open, develop it without using other folks property.

Remember when Apple Music was first announced with a 3 month free trial...giving away musicians property for nothing; giving away someone else’s property under the guise of Apple benevolence. Only an internet uproar made Apple relent and pay the royalties during the “free” trial.

 

[ani4ani]

It has never occurred to any Apple fan in this forum, that the reason VirnetX hold these patents is because Apple (and sooo many other big companies) refuse to license and rather go to court?

Small innovative companies patents their ideas in the hope that some big company will use their tech and they will reap the reward of their hard work. Instead, big tech just give them the middle finger with the classic "so sue us", knowing full well that small companies have absolutely no chance against the army of lawyers of big tech.

Their only option may be to sell their patents to vultures like VirnetX. "Patent trolls" gets their patents from somewhere, usually companies bankrupt or soon-to-be, it's not like they come up with the ideas (hence "patent trolls").

Sooooo, if Apple, and other big tech companies would ever decide to license in the first place instead of waiting to get sued by a "patent troll", innovation could happen outside of big tech, and I think everyone would be better off.

I agree with most of your post, but why call VirnetX “vultures?” They didn’t buy this patent from anyone; it is their own invention and this case has been going on for more than 10 years probably before “troll” was in language.

When companies collapse, their IP can be a very valuable asset to their creditors and so are sold on to settle outstanding debts. Usually, these patents are mopped up by their competitors and sometimes by companies who see an unrelated value, but nevertheless value. Much of Apples value is in their unrealised ideas, that is their IP stream of ideas that may or may not find their way into their future products. Apple mops up plenty smaller companies to acquire their IP rather than for what they doing now. Just because a “patent troll” (or by definition someone who has the audacity to sue and win against Apple) doesn’t build phones or cars and buys up “ideas” doesn’t make their reasons for doing so, any less legitimate than Apples’