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

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Apple's Appeal in $440 Million VirnetX Patent Case

SoN1NjA

SoN1NjA

macrumors 68020
Feb 3, 2016
2,073
2,183
VirnetX: patents something without using it ― Apple fans get in a roar about how broken the US patent system is and then says the Supreme Court is wrong

Apple: patents something without using it ― Apple fans cheer at the cool things Apple dreamed up

Totally ridiculous and dual thinking is involved which is unfair if we're being honest with ourselves, but fanboys cannot see past the thinkings that are logical
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: PrincePoppycock, Peza19, PC_tech and 3 others
squirrellydw

squirrellydw

macrumors regular
Nov 22, 2003
239
337
It is broke watch the movie/documentary “The Patent Scam”. It will explain everything. Stop talking about **** you know nothing about.
 
Last edited:
F

farewelwilliams

Suspended
Jun 18, 2014
4,966
18,041
cmaier said:
A jury and judges at multiple levels decided that VirnetX is entitled to win. Unless you sat through the trial and read the briefs, how do you know they are wrong?
Click to expand...

Last I heard, patent trolling is legal. Jury and judges may be right, but it doesn't mean the system isn't broken.
 
T

Tubamajuba

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2011
2,185
2,443
here
ikir said:
Are you joking guys? VirnetX is patent trolls King
Click to expand...

They don’t care, they just see someone going against Apple and side with them. It’s the MacRumors forums way.

Anyone who actually knows what patent trolls are would be against this ruling, so to be fair maybe they just don’t know what patent trolls are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blogcraft
Expos of 1969

Expos of 1969

Contributor
Aug 25, 2013
4,741
9,257
Tubamajuba said:
They don’t care, they just see someone going against Apple and side with them. It’s the MacRumors forums way.
Click to expand...
Not quite. A large number of MR posters salivate at everything Apple does and are just enthralled by its every movement, warranted or not. The saddest ones are those who only talk about revenues and what actions may do to the price of the stock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrincePoppycock, Peza19 and PC_tech
Kabeyun

Kabeyun

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2004
3,412
6,350
Eastern USA
cmaier said:
That’s just name calling.

why, specifically, are they not entitled to the award?
Click to expand...
cmaier said:
It’s never been a requirement in any patent system for the patent owner to make or sell anything.
Click to expand...
Not knowing the details of the case, I’m supposing they probably are entitled to the award. And corrrct, it hasn’t been a requirement for a patent owner they actually do anything with the intellectual property other than license or litigate it. What do you need to understand is that most people, even here, don’t disagree with either of those things. The problem many, and I, have is that the company exists in the first place. Perhaps in an overhauled patent system, this requirement, or some form of it, should be in place.
 
F

Freida

Suspended
Oct 22, 2010
4,077
5,868
Why not? You still spend resources etc. to come up with that patent especially when it comes to technology so why shouldn't you make money on it? If you come up with a great idea or invention it shouldn't necessary mean that you have to implement it and produce it. ie. lets just say that I have amazing invention for a car and its so good that I will patent it. However, why should I then be required to produce cars? Let alone the fact that I might have one great idea/invention but the produce a product would require way more capital (patents etc.) to do so you imply that I shouldn't be allowed to capitalise on my invention just because I don't produce cars?


azentropy said:
Right, but that is why some people think the patent system is broke!
They feel patent system should be to protect those develop and create things, not to be sold off or hoarded like a commodity to third parties.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and Expos of 1969
temna

temna

macrumors 6502a
May 5, 2008
713
410
Freida said:
or not? Why do you assume Apple is in the right? We know from the past that Apple steals stuff so they should get punished.
Just because you are Apple doesn't mean you can get away with it.
Click to expand...

Apple is in the right for one major reason, they make a product. Simple.
 
quagmire

quagmire

macrumors 604
Apr 19, 2004
6,910
2,338
Northern Man said:
If the patent exists legally and the current owner acquired it legally it doesn't matter. A company infringing on the patent is the issue. Seems quite simple. Infringe on a patent and face the repercussions. Makes no difference who owns the patent.
Click to expand...

Like I said... No problem with Apple getting held liable here. If they violated it, they violated it. There is no defense of Apple here. And the way the system is currently setup, the law was followed.

My issue stands with a business is setup to just own patents and makes their money on suing on infringers. That's their business model. They didn't even come up with the patent either, they acquired it.

This isn't a case of someone coming up with an idea, patented it, and then nothing came of fruition from it. It's a money making scheme. The business does nothing else besides sue other companies on patents they have acquired. Bit of a different case if they patented the idea and then sat on it, but acquire patents for the sole purpose to use them generate money via the litigation process.
 
Expos of 1969

Expos of 1969

Contributor
Aug 25, 2013
4,741
9,257
quagmire said:
Like I said... No problem with Apple getting held liable here.

My issue stands with a business is setup to just own patents and makes their money on suing on infringers. That's their business model. They didn't even come up with the patent either, they acquired it.

This isn't a case of someone coming up with an idea, patented it, and then nothing came of fruition from it. It's a money making scheme. The business does nothing else besides sue other companies on patents they have acquired. Bit of a different case if they patented the idea and then sat on it, but acquire patents for the sole purpose to use them generate money via the litigation process.
Click to expand...
The end result may not be to your liking but lots of businesses and transactions seem unsavoury but are perfectly legal. You state that "it is a money making scheme". As all are businesses.

Why not cast some blame on the company which sold the patent to this sort of business rather than using it itself? As long as it is legal to buy and sell patents we must accept the end result.

Why is Apple so stupid and sleazy to think it can just infringe on patents (no matter who owns them) without acquiring them legally with proper compensation? I imagine Apple figures it will only get caught some of the time and the past and future revenues from using these stolen patents will far outweigh the meagre penalties imposed by the courts. What a way to run a business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
az431

az431

Suspended
Sep 13, 2008
2,131
6,122
Portland, OR
osx86 said:
This is what a broken patent system looks like. Patent trolls getting money like this...
Click to expand...

What is broken about a system that allows patent owners to enforce their patents? If the opposite were true, then there might be an argument that it is indeed broken.
[automerge]1582574109[/automerge]
azentropy said:
Right, but that is why some people think the patent system is broke!
They feel patent system should be to protect those develop and create things, not to be sold off or hoarded like a commodity to third parties.
Click to expand...

Well they're wrong. For some reason it's ok to sell or transfer anything except patents. A movie studio can sell its catalog of films, and whoever buys those films can choose to not show them and continue to enforce their IP. But for some reason patents can't? Maybe it's a religious thing because the argument certainly has no practical or logical merit (nor is it supported under any law in any country on earth).
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux, ssgbryan, V_Man and 1 other person
Labeno

Labeno

macrumors 6502
Jul 21, 2008
351
1,089
So... 12 hours of work for Apple considering they make about a billion a day. I wash that was my hourly wage.
 
quagmire

quagmire

macrumors 604
Apr 19, 2004
6,910
2,338
Northern Man said:
The end result may not be to your liking but lots of businesses and transactions seem unsavoury but are perfectly legal. You state that "it is a money making scheme". As all are businesses.

Why not cast some blame on the company which sold the patent to this sort of business rather than using it itself? As long as it is legal to buy and sell patents we must accept the end result.

Why is Apple so stupid and sleazy to think it can just infringe on patents (no matter who owns them) without acquiring them legally with proper compensation? I imagine Apple figures it will only get caught some of the time and the past and future revenues from using these stolen patents will far outweigh the meagre penalties imposed by the courts. What a way to run a business.
Click to expand...

Sure perfectly legal and as I stated, the courts have no fight in the "patent troll" debate. Their job isn't to change the law so the courts did what they were supposed to. Apple infringed and now they have to rightfully pay up.

If we want the system to be changed where "patent trolls" are not a legal form of business, that has to go to Congress.

You seem content in letting the system continue as is vs reforming it when an issue that should be addressed pops up.
 
jstsch

jstsch

macrumors newbie
Jan 15, 2020
16
40
The Hague, South Holland, NL
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