Oh man reality is gonna trip you out. Just wait till you figure out how many industries are subsidized by governments.
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 Won't Get Rehearing in VirnetX Patent Infringement Battle Dating Back to 2010, Court Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I recall Jobs announced FaceTime would become an open source/industry standard for cross platform use during the iPhone 4 keynote when FaceTime was announced. Ultimately this never happened as VirnetX sued and won an initial 5 year injunction stopping Apple from making FaceTime open source. Now that the initial 5 years have passed, are the current suits simply dealing with IP infringement payouts and appeals or can FaceTime become the open source cross platform idea Jobs envisioned? If so, is Apple now deciding not to make it open source to sell more iDevices?
Found a few interesting articles from a quick search
Apple: Honor Steve Jobs and make FaceTime open source
This could be why Apple has yet to make FaceTime an open-standard like it promised
Found a few interesting articles from a quick search
Apple: Honor Steve Jobs and make FaceTime open source
This could be why Apple has yet to make FaceTime an open-standard like it promised
Software routines should not be patentable. The hardware? Absolutely. The way the software looks, feels, and interacts? Yes. But not the underlying code that causes all of this to be. That's like patenting DNA.
Such a waste of resources (time and money). The entire patent system should be abolished. Ideas are not property. Property is that which is scarce and rivalrous. If I "steal" your idea, you don't forget the idea. We both have it. Therefore there was no theft. That's the definition of theft; I took something that belonged to you and now you don't have it anymore.
Jobs was right when he said "Picasso had a saying -- 'good artists copy; great artists steal' -- and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
One can read more about the anti-IP red pill with "Against Intellectual Property" by Stehpan Kinsella.
The patent system has literally made us as a society poorer and sacrificed countless lives all in the name of a vague gut instinct that is demonstrably and empirically false (that nobody would ever innovate or do anything whatsoever absent a patent system).
Jobs was right when he said "Picasso had a saying -- 'good artists copy; great artists steal' -- and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
One can read more about the anti-IP red pill with "Against Intellectual Property" by Stehpan Kinsella.
The patent system has literally made us as a society poorer and sacrificed countless lives all in the name of a vague gut instinct that is demonstrably and empirically false (that nobody would ever innovate or do anything whatsoever absent a patent system).
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Why would you tell your kids to never exagerate? A very useful skill in the right context! One could argue that you are exagerating by saying to "never" exagerate.
Or when they expire, I suppose. Thanks for the explanation.
Comes back around to my original argument (to the world, not to you), that if multiple people independently come up with the same solution for a given problem, then it shouldn't be patentable, because it fails the non-obviousness test. Patents were intended to protect inventors from people copying their work, not from people independently having the same thought. Sigh.
The explanation I got a few comments back is that the original design which would have been suitable for open cross platform use (didn't have much impact on the servers) is the one they got sued over, and it was necessarily replaced by a less optimal one that is heavily dependent on Apple's servers. So it's not "to sell more iDevices", that's keeping it off Android and such, it's that they'd need to charge all those PC/Android users for what it costs to run (Mac/iOS users are effectively covered by what they pay for their devices - the "Apple Tax" isn't all profit). Aren't software patents on obvious ideas neat?
I caught the exact same after posting my comment. Makes sense. Just a shame as it would be nice to have a unified, secure, simple yet robust form of communication as I travel internationally and juggle three different numbers on SIM's and eSIM's while using FaceTime audio and/or video for iPhone to iPhone calls as they're free on wifi. There are so many various apps people use that I also have to maintain accounts on them as well. Would be nice to simply use FaceTime to any phone and not have to maintain my Berlin, UK, and US lines as most places have wifi hotspots for FaceTime audio and even video. *sigh* first world problems
I think you may have missed the funnier half of @coumerelli 's clever funny. He told his kids a million times not to exaggerate... a million times. ← see what he did there? The never exaggerate exaggeration was just sorta funny. The million times exaggeration was properly over the top.
would be interesting to see a chart listing all patent infringement suits aapl are defending
how much legal fees aapl put up
how much money loos or gained from decisions
how much legal fees aapl put up
how much money loos or gained from decisions
the first item I could probably get you, since that information is publicly available. It’s a lot - more than anyone else, last time I checked. The vast majority do not go to trial. Many patents are invalidated in inter partes reexamination proceedings. I presume many other cases must be settled.
The PTAB did rule that the patents at issue (i.e. relevant claims of those patents) were invalid. It did so not based on them being obvious, but based on them being anticipated by prior art (i.e. Takahiro Kiuchi - The Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-Based Network on the Internet (1996)).
There were 4 patents which Apple was, in this case, found to have infringed - '211, '504, '135, and '151. The PTAB instituted an IPR against each of those patents. That means that the Board found that there was a reasonable likelihood that the petitioners (Black Swamp for '211 and '504, Mangrove Partners for '135 and '151) would be able to demonstrate invalidity for some of the claims at issue.
The Federal Circuit found that Apple hadn't infringed '211 and '504 - i.e., it found that Apple was entitled to JMOL on the infringement issue because no reasonable jury could, using proper claim constructions, find that Apple infringed the asserted claims of those patents. But, for the record, the PTAB found many claims of those patents invalid as anticipated by Kiuchi.
Regarding '135 and '151, the PTAB also found that the asserted claims from those patents (2 from '135 and 1 from '151) - as well as most of the other claims of those patents - were invalid as anticipated by Kiuchi. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded those decisions for a number of reasons that I won't get lost in.
However, among other issues, the Federal Circuit left it for the PTAB to consider the obviousness issue with regard to both patents. The PTAB hadn't previously needed to decide on obviousness because it had found anticipation. The Federal Circuit also left it for the PTAB to reconsider the anticipation issue with regard to '135. The PTAB heard arguments in these matters a few weeks ago.
So we don't know whether the claims at issue will ultimately be found, through IPR, to be invalid. But the point is that there's at least some reasonable arguments to be made that they are invalid.
To be clear, that most likely (barring an unlikely review by the Supreme Court) won't help Apple when it comes to the case which is the subject of this thread. Apple hasn't been allowed to make the invalidity arguments that it wanted to because of previous litigation, involving the same patents, between the parties. So even if VirnetX's asserted claims (from '135 and '151) are ultimately invalidated through the IPR process, Apple will likely have to pay damages based on having infringed them. What's left now is to determine how much Apple will have to pay.
Thanks for the deep procedural history, I appreciate it.
So long story short, correct me if I'm wrong, there are claims that have been found infringed by the district court, and reviews of those claims are still pending before the PTAB after a remand from the CAFC. Is that a decent summary?
If so, isn't ideal circumstances to ask the court to wait on entering a final judgment until the PTAB finishes it's thing? It can't be that long since they're past the institution phase.
At the very least, Apple might need to put up bond to put off enforcement until the PTAB is finished.
Also, I'm not sure what you said is correct. Even if final judgment is entered, but the claims are ultimately found invalid by the PTAB and all appeals exhausted, I don't think VitnetX is entitled to damages still. The judgment would be vacated.
You've got to hand it to VirnetX. Very few go all the way with Apple like this and comes out ahead. Apple's doesn't always fight fair.
You're welcome.
Yes, Apple has been found to have infringed claims from two VirnetX patents by the district court as affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
In separate proceedings, the PTAB is reconsidering whether those claims (and others) are invalid.
As for the Federal Circuit waiting, Apple no doubt would have liked both the district court and the Federal Circuit to wait for a final decision from the PTAB. Apple commented in a recent Supreme Court cert petition (relating to an earlier case between VirnetX and Apple) that it was unusual that the district court didn't stay that litigation pending a final decision from the PTAB.
In response to your penultimate paragraph, that will depend on a couple things. First, the timing of the respective final judgments - i.e. the one from the infringement case and the one from the IPR. Second, what the Supreme Court decides to do with the cert petition I mentioned above and, if it grants cert, how it rules on the questions raised.
Generally speaking, if a patent is invalidated by the PTO that invalidation has effect in pending infringement cases. The question is, when is an infringement case no longer pending? An invalidation doesn't negate the damages awarded in an infringement case if that case is not on-going.
The infringement case we've been talking about in this thread is the second brought by VirnetX against Apple based on the 4 patents I mentioned. This second case is based on alleged infringement by a newer version of iOS. The earlier case alleged infringement by an earlier version and by earlier devices. VirnetX won that earlier case also, with the finding that Apple had infringed all 4 patents being upheld by the Federal Circuit. In the second case, the Federal Circuit upheld the infringement finding for only 2 of the patents.
The Federal Circuit already upheld the PTAB's invalidation of those 2 patents found to have been infringed in the earlier case but not in the latest case. But here's where the issue of timing comes in. The Federal Circuit upheld that invalidation after it had upheld the infringement findings from the earlier district court case - i.e., after it had upheld the infringement finding for those same 2 patents.
The timing went like this: A Federal Circuit panel upholds infringement finding. Apple asks the Federal Circuit to rehear the case en banc. A Federal Circuit panel upholds the PTAB's invalidity finding (according to Apple this happened before the mandate, which effectively ended the infringement case at the circuit court level, was issued). Apple requests leave to file a second petition asking the Federal Circuit to reconsider the case, arguing that the invalidity of 2 of the patents should require the damages award to be reconsidered. The Federal Circuit denies Apple that leave.
Apple has now filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, that petition is set to be heard during the Court's conference next Friday. One of the arguments Apple is making is that the Federal Circuit erred by not giving effect to the invalidity finding which Apple argues came while the infringement case was still pending. Apple argues that it was still pending because the appellate mandate hadn't issued and because it hadn't yet filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, let alone had that petition denied.
If the Supreme Court grants Apple's petition with regard to this timing issue (Apple also raised an apportionment question in its petition), then we may well get further clarity on when PTAB invalidations are to be given effect in infringement cases. But even if the Court were to find in Apple's favor on this issue, that might not help Apple when it comes to the second infringement case. That case is on track to be finally resolved - e.g., by a Supreme Court cert denial - before a PTAB invalidation of the other 2 patents (if that's what the PTAB does on reconsideration) could be issued and upheld.
Who knows what will happen, but I think there's at least a reasonable chance that the second infringement case won't still be pending if and when those 2 patents are ultimately invalidated.