So is inventing the patent the hard part or the actual invention the hard part? When someone suggests apple should move manufacturing to USA, someone is always going to say that is too hard, all the factories are in china. But when Samsung copies and builds stuff in South Korea, that was easy.
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 Pays VirnetX $454 Million for Patent Infringement After U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Apple's Appeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You mean like Apple's app grid layout for which Apple sued Samsung? Well, I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
1. huge difference between copying 1 thing and copying 50+ things that make up one product
2. Apple actually uses the patents they were suing Samsung for instead of sitting on them for the sole purpose of waiting for someone to copy it
but, please, omit those details to make your case sound better than it really is.
1. Wrong, VirnetX actually sued Apple for a bunch of patent infringements. There is another on-going lawsuit which Apple lost in a lower court ruling to the tune of $461M.
2. NO, not necessarily. Take Apple's tablet design patent claims against Samsung. Apple's tablet design claims were thrown out on prior art pretty much everywhere, but the UK Higher Court of Justice also noted the registered design Samsung was accused of violating didn't involve Apple's iPad design (ie, Apple's patents asserted against Samsung weren't used in their product):
"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: The issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law."
"So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."
Yes, it seems like Apple's legal practice involves sitting on a bunch of patents for the sole purpose of waiting for someone to copy it. I don't see why VirnetX's business practice is any worse than Apple's.
Last edited:
I'm talking about your mischaracterization of the entire Samsung lawsuit where you only cited one infringement. You made it sound like Apple would drop a huge lawsuit on anyone that took the smallest detail of a product when in fact Samsung copied many details into one product.
This doesn't invalidate what I said. Apple uses the patents they sued Samsung for. Whether the lawsuit was successful or whether the patent is valid is a different subject. All of Apple's patents could be invalidated during the lawsuit and my statement would still be correct.
Last edited:
1. Sure, I was likewise pointing out your mischaracterization of VirnetX's lawsuit as a single patent violation lawsuit, when it's clearly not. Apple is also known for absurdly aggressive legal approach for smallest things -- see Apple's trademark lawsuit against a Polish grocer:
Apple vs. A.pl: Tech company sues online Polish grocer over logo
Apple is demanding that the trademark of an online Polish grocer be revoked
www.pcworld.com
2. Nope, try harder. As I quoted in the UK court decision before, the UK court clearly explained the case was all about Apple's registered designs NOT used in their product and Samsung, and nothing else. Judge Birss further made that point clear by describing Samsung's tablets NOT as "cool" as Apple's iPad whose design claims were NOT part of the lawsuit.
Last edited:
Unknowingly infringing a patent isn’t “stealing”. Either is knowingly infringing.
Companies disagree on the validity or applicability of various patents all the time. Sometimes they settle out of court, sometimes the matter goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
If Apple (or any other company) chooses to take such a disagreement to court and ultimately loses, they’ll have to pay up.
I never mischaracterized VirnetX's lawsuit. The point was the simplicity and the obviousness of the idea, not that my analogy (which was made to be similar to az431's inaccurate analogy) dealt with a single idea.
Apple is also known for absurdly aggressive legal approach for smallest things -- see Apple's trademark lawsuit against a Polish grocer:
Apple vs. A.pl: Tech company sues online Polish grocer over logo
Apple is demanding that the trademark of an online Polish grocer be revoked
And how does this change the fact that Apple is using the trademark? We're talking about patent trolls that don't use what they own. This point is irrelevant to the conversation.
"Apple actually uses the patents they were suing Samsung for" has nothing to do with what the Judge or the court says. If you look at the lawsuit filing, Apple intended to sue Samsung for copying certain patents for which Apple has used in their products. This is a plain fact and can't be disputed. Even if the Judge says "none of these patents are relevant to the case" or if Apple lost the lawsuit entirely, the fact is Apple filed those papers with the intention of suing Samsung for copying the patents Apple was already using.
If you can't understand that, I can't help you there. Maybe you need to try harder in terms of comprehending what is being said. Regardless, I feel like we've reached the end of the conversation and you simply are refusing to admit wrong so I won't be reading anymore of your replies as you're trying hard to dig yourself out of this one. Have a nice day.
VirnetX is what is known as a "non-practicing entity." They don't actually do anything but sue companies.
But don't take my word for it. Go read their SEC filings. They are a publicly traded company, just like AAPL. VirnetX's stock symbol is VHC
VirnetX Holding Corporation (VHC) Stock Price, News, Quote & History - Yahoo Finance
Find the latest VirnetX Holding Corporation (VHC) stock quote, history, news and other vital information to help you with your stock trading and investing.
finance.yahoo.com
Definitely, if they are not making any product and they dont intend to, then patents should be invalidated. Should be more like time bound, if you apply for patent, there should be lockin period of say 2-3yrs max. Come out with the marketable product or lose the patent, let someone else make the product.
I mean, everyone around the world is doing RnD, solving the same problem, referring the same inter-connected research papers all around the world, they are bound to solve the problem with similar approach without copying each other.
man...
another lost case
recent cal tech loss among many other in past legal patent losses
millions awarded
not being a legal person i continue to see lots of decisions against aapl
millions and millions of bucks awarded out
someone should do an investigative expose on aapl legal dept and track record
how will aapl do better protecting itself against these cases
another lost case
recent cal tech loss among many other in past legal patent losses
millions awarded
not being a legal person i continue to see lots of decisions against aapl
millions and millions of bucks awarded out
someone should do an investigative expose on aapl legal dept and track record
how will aapl do better protecting itself against these cases
Patent infringement isn’t stealing.
[automerge]1584204135[/automerge]
They win the vast majority of the suits against them. They are also (in most recent years) the most-sued company for patent infringement due to their size, profits, and the fact that the products they sell are in technologies where there is extremely heavy patent activity. Samsung sometimes beats them as most-sued.
In 2018 they were involved in 190 patent cases. In 2019 it was 123. So far this year it is 92.
In 96% of the cases they have been involved with (1317 since 2008) they are the ones accused of infringing.
In 110 cases they were found to have infringed patents, but that doesn’t mean they had to pay anything, because the patents may have been invalid or unenforceable. In 247 cases they were found NOT to have infringed. In 322 cases the patents were found to be invalid. In 4 cases the patents were not enforceable, due to inequitable conduct by the patent holders. The rest of the cases were either settled or are ongoing
Last edited:
Samsung builds most of its phones in Vietnam. You know, a place where minimum wage is far below South Korea and USA.
Taking something that somebody else owns without their approval isn't theft? Strange definition of theft you must posses in that case.
Opinion | Patent infringement is theft, plain and simple
Universities are the driving force behind innovation today, and their rights need to be protected.
www.washingtonpost.com
Patent infringement doesn’t “take” anything. The patent owner still has their patent. Patent infringement also does not require knowledge. You don’t even need to know the patent exists. How can I steal something without knowing I did it?Taking something that somebody else owns without their approval isn't theft? Strange definition of theft you must posses in that case.
Opinion | Patent infringement is theft, plain and simple
Universities are the driving force behind innovation today, and their rights need to be protected.
in fact, you, me and everyone else probably infringes at least one patent every day. Most patents on phone technology, for example, are infringed merely by USING the phone. Are you a thief?
This is a strawman fallacy and a ludicrous argument. Stay on topic.
It takes the intellectual property of the patent owner and uses it without their permission. Intellectual property (notice the word "property") is owned regardless of whether you claim it isn't.
Theft is theft, and Apple's theft has resulted in them paying $400M to the IP's owner. (notice the word "owner", that word is used because they own the intellectual property).
How is it a straw man, or a fallacy, or a ludicrous argument? It’s absolutely true. 37 USC 271(a) says that if you *use* a device that infringes, you are infringing the patent.
You use iPhones. You are committing patent infringement. Are you stealing? Yes or no?
It isn't true because unknowingly owning a device which infringes on a patent is not commercial in nature, of which is required to be patent infringement. Buying a device that infringes on a patent is IP theft by the entity that sold you the device. Your strawman is so laughably bad that you've embarrassed yourself by doubling down on it, and has no relevance to that fact that patent infringement is a form of theft.
Now, you can give up the act and stop pretending that you have any clue of what you are talking about, since all you have been able to do is post ludicrous strawman arguments.
That is 100% absolutely false. Infringement does NOT have to be commercial in nature.
35 USC 271:
(a)
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
You are giving very wrong legal advice to people.
And since YOU are infringing by using the phone, and you say infringement is stealing, I ask you - are you a thief?
A use of a patented invention need not be commercial in nature in order to constitute infringement. This is black letter patent law. If you make, use, offer for sell, or sell a patented invention, then you infringe it. That is, of course, unless you have authorization.
If Apple licenses a patent which it incorporates in an iPhone, then sells that iPhone to you, then you aren’t infringing by using the iPhone. But if Apple (or someone in the chain) hasn’t licensed that patent, and you us the iPhone in a way that uses the patented invention, then you are infringing. That may not be how you’d like the law to work; but that is how the law works.
Give me a single precedented case where a court ruled against a general consumer over patent infringement by owning a product they bought that is comparable to an iPhone and Facetime, and where damages were owed to the patent holder.
Oh right, no such case exists.
Apple knowingly infringes on patents and sells their products knowing that they will likely need to defend themselves in court, IP theft plain and simple, hence the $400M loss. You knew for a fact that you had no defense for Apple's patent infringement, which you still refuse to acknowledge even after your strawman was identified, instead you continue to move the goalposts to argue that a general consumer is a thief because of their purchases which is completely irrelevant. Classic and obvious strawman.
Last edited:
Sigh. You continue to be completely wrong.
You want cases? Google Innovatio or MPHJ.
Or here’s a paper describing how this is actually increasing in frequency:
Why Technology Customers Are Being Sued En Masse for Patent Infringement & What Can Be Done by Colleen V. Chien, Edward Reines :: SSRN
Last year, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation were accused of patent infringement. Their alleged wrongdoing? Purchasing
papers.ssrn.com
More importantly, though, both Carnegie and I have cited the actual language of the federal law that applies. You have cited nothing, and are claiming that the law is exactly the opposite of what the law says. So the onus is on you, not us, to cite cases.
Additionally, you claim Apple was found to willfully infringe. Willfulness is not required for patent infringement, though it can increase the penalty.
A straw man argument is not what you think it is. I am not knocking down an argument you didn’t actually make. You say patent infringement is stealing. I say you may be infringing patents merely by using an infringing device, and I ask whether you are stealing. You do nothing but evade by mis-stating the law and saying, falsely, that commercial activity is required for infringement. Not true. You can’t prove it is true, and two of us have proven that it is not.
So, again, if you are using a iphone that was ruled to infringe VirnetX patents, then presumably you are infringing those patents. The question still stands - are you a thief? I don’t think so.
Last edited:
Did the courts rule in favor of Bluewave?
No?
Right, no precedent. None exists.
You are using a strawman because you know my use of an Apple product is irrelevant to Apple knowingly infringing on patents. They are completely different situations.
You apparently don’t know what legal precedent means. There has never been any case where a patent lawsuit was dismissed on the basis that the defendant merely was a user of the product and didn’t make it, sell it, etc. Never. Not once. Bluewave was not dismissed on that basis, either. The fact that bluewave was not dismissed on that basis is, in fact, precedent.
Now you are playing the straw man. I said “patent infringement is not stealing.” You said “yes it is.“
Now if you want to change that to “WILLFUL patent infringement is stealing,” that’s your prerogative, but that wasn’t your story before, and wasn’t something I was addressing. And along the way you’ve said a lot of provably wrong things about what patent infringement is, and how it works.
So let’s play the game further. You are aware of the VirnetX patent. You were aware of it during the lawsuit, before the court ruled in VirnetX’s favor, yes? And you were aware that iPhone was accused of infringing specific VirnetX patents? If so, were you using one of the accused iPhones at the time? Did you keep using it, even knowing that VirnetX had a specific patent that was being infringed? So you were willfully infringing the patent by using the phone under 35 USC 271(a) and 35 USC 284? So are you a thief? I still don’t think so.