Does virnetX actually have a "technology" - or do they have drawings and descriptions of a technology?
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 VirnetX Another $502.8 Million for Patent Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here's some more facts for ya:
Remember when Apple's FaceTime stopped working years ago? Yeah, that was deliberate
Class-action lawsuit over iOS 6 snafu allowed to move ahead
Here's 1 fact:Here's some more facts for ya:
Remember when Apple's FaceTime stopped working years ago? Yeah, that was deliberate
Class-action lawsuit over iOS 6 snafu allowed to move aheadwww.theregister.com
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.
LOL...So companies should not protect their IP. And Apple isn’t greedy?!? Points like this are so ridiculous it is not worth responding. So I wont.
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.
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.
They won't. This is their business, acquiring vague patents then suing big corps, and they're the best at what they do. Both parties in each lawsuit know it.
No, that’s not how it works. The jury wouldn’t know about any settlement offers or the amount of any such offers.
They hear expert testimony on how a hypothetical negotiation at the time when infringement first started would have resulted in a reasonable royalty.
Settlement offers are secret, and cannot be used as the basis of damages. The federal rules of evidence say:
Rule 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations
(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:(1) furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim — except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
coming from..."macsrcool"...
I've criticized Apple plenty. this is not one of the cases.
Either they didn’t think they were infringing anything or they didn’t think they would get caught. Seems kind of strange to spend so much effort and money telling the world about something you want to keep secret so nobody knows you stole it but these things happen to every company, especially the largest targets like Apple.
The only thing they’ve been “caught” doing is infringing patents that the patent office currently says are invalid.
No, that is the Judge's job. Judges instruct juries on how to consider the facts in relation to the law, which is why damages are often re-assessed if the instructions given to the jury were determined to be too ambiguous. It wasn't pulled out of a hat, it was made in line with instructions from the presiding Judge. Juries don't just get to award damages however they want.
For example, damages due to Apple from Samsung were appalled and re-assessed because it was determined the jury, based on the instructions they were given, may have awarded damages out of line with IP law. I don't remember if Samsung appealed because they felt the jury was overestimated damages or Apple because they felt the jury underestimated, but IIRC Samsung still faced a similar bill in the end.
Last edited:
They should exist, but patent law needs to be completely reformed for the digital age. Software patents focus far too much on the end result, and not on the how that result is achieved. If I market a printer that works completely different from anything on the market, I wouldn't have to pay HP just because the final product is text or an image on paper. With software and other patents concerning digital products, far too much weight is given to the end result, regardless of if the engineering to achieve that result is completely different.
We also need to fund the patent office, as right now there is now incentive for the office to deny patents even if its clear prior art exists. The patent office needs patent fees to survive, and so is essentially funded by patent holders. It's a conflict of interest. How can we expect the patent office to deny or invalidate patents if it needs the fees from those patents to exist? As it stands, courts are often the only arbiter on a patents validity, and are overburdened because the gatekeeper isn't effective. Apple wouldn't have to deal with patent trolls in court if the patent office hadn't granted the patents in the first place.
Last edited:
Well, yes, a bit of an obvious one that I didn’t mention out, true. Pretty much like checking if a name exists before submitting a company or trademarks names.
I’m more referring to the cheer amount of patent holders there, because it’s not “did they check if someone else already did” a product or tech, it’s more “did they check if someone holds a patent for it”. I’m not saying it is a good or bad system, I’m saying it seems to be abused.
Let’s forget this is Apple here, is checking for patents expensive? Or is it public domain so I can decide to either go through patents and “pay” with time or hire an army of lawyers to go faster?
Feels like in the long run, this patent system that’s supposed to protect inventors from the big bad swallowing tech companies will be only affordable and manageable by said big companies.
Regarding Apple infringement, you seem to assume it is in bad faith (possible and likely, granted), I’m assuming and arguing that it could very well be just an unmanageable amount of things... imagine someone taking the trash out, this is a weekly chore for years, one day a police comes by and asks “did you take the trash out x date?”, the person replies yes, “well sir, there’s trouble because that day under the ground there was...”. Sure, the person admitted infringement.
Jury system, ok, didn’t know, I thought they were strictly “guilty or innocent” assessments (and this has nothing to do whether for me is hard to accept or reject, appearances of it aside).
My choice would likely be then to just use the standard punishment system instead of risking one of the jury escalating a misdemeanor to a death sentence... kinda not comfortable with a panel of people deciding what years and years of law evolution has established.
Edit: saw another comment regarding the jury thing. They seem to have a range and not free reign on the punishment level.
Sure it will. 5 years from now things will be no different. Once the political season is over everything will go back to the status quo and the Lobbyists will regain control. Remember, you don't live in a Democracy. You live in a Federated Republic. It's about the money, not the People.
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).