VirnetX Asking For $532 Million From Apple in Patent Retrial

[MikhailT]

Software patents are not worth the slowing down of the progress of art/science of software development. The society does not benefit from software patents. To be a developer and constantly worrying about developing features that someone else already have a patent on is silly. If anyone can do it without additional help, it cannot be patented. If it requires something special like a touchscreen sensor, then the sensor itself can be patented. There's a reason the courts have said several times that ideas cannot be patented, including math formulas and stuff like that.

I give credit to Apple for coming up with the creative solution for unlocking a phone with the slide to unlock and how to do it. However, I refuse and will never believe Apple has the exclusive right to use it and to force everyone else to stop using it and to ban incoming hardware that infringes on this. I agree Apple should have an exclucive right to Touch ID sensor for 5 years and that's it, after that everyone should have access to it.

Universities are working completely different than common belief.
Universities are not in for the protit. Their research is not commercially driven.
The truth is that universities are getting most of their money from the government and are tasked with finding a solution for problem X. The actual research is part of the common academic growth.
Once they find the solution their research is either donated (as in, for gratis) to an institution, be it via or direct to an institution (spin-off, government OR commercial, mostly with some predefined rules) that will patent it and make something good out of it.

So what are the governments' benefits I hear you ask? Their universities get some credit and fame, people will get a job, companies will pay more taxes, export will grow, country and/or world might become a better place.

I agree with you that all research funded by US' taxpayers must have its results put in the public domain. However, the state and federal gov't's funding of research in the universities is decreasing every year and it is now something like 10-20%.

Majority of the research are in fact being funded by the industry related to the research. Pharma industry is funding most of the chemistry and biological related research and so on. It's part of the reason why there are so many shell companies being created from these research universities.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Universities are working completely different than common belief.
Universities are not in for the protit. Their research is not commercially driven.
The truth is that universities are getting most of their money from the government and are tasked with finding a solution for problem X. They don't have a fixed budget or time frame to find that solution.

The actual research is part of the common academic growth.
Once they find the solution their research is either donated or licensed (as in, for gratis) to an institution, be it via or direct to an institution (spin-off, government OR commercial, mostly with some predefined rules) that will patent it and make something good out of it.

So what are the governments' benefits I hear you ask? Their universities get some credit and fame, people will get a job, companies will pay more taxes, export will grow, country and/or world might become a better place.

Woa? Universities get most of their money from government and are not in it for profit? Since when??? That is 100% false. Universities are a business and just like every other business are in for the money. Don't be fooled by "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" labels - those are just minor restrictions on how the profits are allocated and tax filing statuses.

While it is true that some research is government funded, the majority is not. The majority of research is funded by private grants. Often, the patents that come out of the research are owned by the university, with a grant to whoever funded the research. Either way, every major University has huge "tech transfer" divisions whose role it is to monetize the patents as much as possible. Usually its a symbiotic and friendly ordeal - license the patents to the former grad students that helped develop the tech in their new venture, then get a share of that venture's future profit. Sometimes it gets contentious, where an infringer refuses to license the patent.

To say the research is not commercially driven is laughable.

 

[bergert]

Apple makes 3x times the devices; so it's only fair they pay 532m instead of 200m - oh wait ... Apple makes 2.66 times more devices than Microsoft sells licenses ?

Like in a cartoon, they have $$ signs in their eyes ...

 

[4jasontv]

Being able to set your own precident using two companies you own should be illegal though.

Agreed. Though the concept of ownership is pretty vague. Do you own your kids things? What about your spouses? Plenty of companies are owned by some fairly faded lines.

 

[Kabeyun]

Second, what about universities and the patent portfolios they develop from their research labs? Often licensing pays for future research grants, but sometimes litigation is needed to get those that refuse to pay at all.

Third, what about financiers? We need investors (venture capital, or otherwise) to invest in startups. Since often startups don't work out, they need some collateral to secure their investment. Often IP is the only asset small startups have to offer. Shouldn't the investors be able to recoup some of their losses in that scenario by licensing, and litigating where needed, that IP?

Strongly disagree. Absolutely not the same thing. In these cases the institution and the startup generated IP from their own work, and with the intention of using it in their further work.

By contrast, the problem we/anyone has with patent trolls is that they simply buy patents and then look around for ways to threaten or sue companies into paying them money. They make nothing, build nothing, contribute nothing, have no ingenuity to protect, and exist only to enrich themselves via legitimized extortion through a loophole that needs to be closed. The original idea behind patents was to protect innovation, not stifle it or profiteer from someone else's.

I also wonder how much of the price of the gadgets with which we type our replies paid for the army of lawyers needed to deal with this garbage.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Strongly disagree. Absolutely not the same thing. In these cases the institution and the startup generated IP from their own work, and with the intention of using it in their further work.

By contrast, the problem we/anyone has with patent trolls is that they simply buy patents and then look around for ways to threaten or sue companies into paying them money. They make nothing, build nothing, contribute nothing, have no ingenuity to protect, and exist only to enrich themselves via legitimized extortion through a loophole that needs to be closed. The original idea behind patents was to protect innovation, not stifle it or profiteer from someone else's.

I also wonder how much of the price of the gadgets with which we type our replies paid for the army of lawyers needed to deal with this garbage.

I disagree that these companies that buy patents only for the goal of enforcing them contribute nothing. As they always say, follow the money.

Say X Corp wants to get into the patent monitization business, buy some patents, and make a profit. X Corp buys patents from a bankruptcy sale of StartUpG. The reason there is a bankruptcy sale at all is because StartUpG borrowed money from creditors some time in the past they now cannot pay back, or they went out of business for whatever reason. Those creditors wouldn't have lent StartUpG the money unless StartUpG had shown them some inventions, and ensured them they were working to patent some of these inventions, so the credits knew that StartUpG would be able to exclude copycats, and also that there is some valuable collateral in case they go bust.

You want to get rid of that critical piece of the puzzle - X Corp. If X Corp can't monitize the patents, then they won't be there to buy the patents at the bankruptcy sale, which means the patents are worth a lot less or are even worthless, which means the creditors don't recoup their owed debt, which means they wouldn't have loaned money to StartUpG in the first place due to no collateral, which means StartUpG wouldn't have even had a chance to try to succeed. If you cut off the rights of patent owners to monitize their patents, you cut off the funding to the very innovators that you allegedly support. So demonize their business model all you want, but these companies play an important role in the economy.

I agree that some small percent of them have predatory practices, where they prey on small infringes and try to extract nuisance settlements without even getting to the merits of their infringement claims. Those are bad, no doubt about it. But those are minor - data shows it's relatively rare. On the flip side, VirnetX, the topic of this story, is not one of them. They have shown they are right on the merits, they are not seeking just a nuisance settlement, and there is no reason their rights in those patents are less than any other patent owner's rights.

 

[Kabeyun]

I disagree that these companies that buy patents only for the goal of enforcing them contribute nothing. As they always say, follow the money.

Say X Corp wants to get into the patent monitization business, buy some patents, and make a profit. X Corp buys patents from a bankruptcy sale of StartUpG. The reason there is a bankruptcy sale at all is because StartUpG borrowed money from creditors some time in the past they now cannot pay back, or they went out of business for whatever reason. Those creditors wouldn't have lent StartUpG the money unless StartUpG had shown them some inventions, and ensured them they were working to patent some of these inventions, so the credits knew that StartUpG would be able to exclude copycats, and also that there is some valuable collateral in case they go bust.

You want to get rid of that critical piece of the puzzle - X Corp. If X Corp can't monitize the patents, then they won't be there to buy the patents at the bankruptcy sale, which means the patents are worth a lot less or are even worthless, which means the creditors don't recoup their owed debt, which means they wouldn't have loaned money to StartUpG in the first place due to no collateral, which means StartUpG wouldn't have even had a chance to try to succeed. If you cut off the rights of patent owners to monitize their patents, you cut off the funding to the very innovators that you allegedly support. So demonize their business model all you want, but these companies play an important role in the economy.

I agree that some small percent of them have predatory practices, where they prey on small infringes and try to extract nuisance settlements without even getting to the merits of their infringement claims. Those are bad, no doubt about it. But those are minor - data shows it's relatively rare. On the flip side, VirnetX, the topic of this story, is not one of them. They have shown they are right on the merits, they are not seeking just a nuisance settlement, and there is no reason their rights in those patents are less than any other patent owner's rights.

You make an interesting argument, but why does X Corp need to be a patent hoarder? Wouldn't it be a better world if X Corp were an Apple or a Samsung or a Sony where it'd be used in association with an actual product? I think so. We saw this with the Rockstar Consortium a few years ago, and I didn't really have a problem with it. (Yes, they moved to sell some of those patents a couple of years later, but that's entirely not the point.)

 

[leroypants]

Cue the Apple haters in 3...2...1...

Cue the zealots of accusing anyone of suing Apple for stealing something another company spent the time designed, researching and creating as Patent Troll in 3...2...1....
[doublepost=1453854343][/doublepost]

BENGHAZI!!! Sun spots!!!
[doublepost=1453814316][/doublepost]

But look at some of the past patent troll lawsuits. Look at the patents those trolls have Hoovered up at bankruptcy sales, and estate sales. Look at how they try to extort millions from successful companies, and leave smaller companies alone in some cases.

Sure, there are 'good' patent trolls, and they are defending 'legitimate' patents, and there are ruthless companies that are all lawyers, and DO troll the bankruptcies and DO troll the estate sales, and DO try to 'leverage' those trolled patents to make their whole income source those patents.

Thuggery is illegal, and the Mafia was run out of business, but 'legal' thuggery like hedge funds and patent trolls are able to fully fund politicians and get away with it. Oh, and there are 'favorable' judges and courts that thrown common sense on the ground and stomp on it...

Patent trolling is a cancer eating at the IT industry, and until money is drained out of politics it won't get any better.

Did you feel the same way when Apple was suing over patents they claim were stolen?
[doublepost=1453854409][/doublepost]

Patent trolls at their finest...

Unlike Apple...

 

[oneMadRssn]

You make an interesting argument, but why does X Corp need to be a patent hoarder? Wouldn't it be a better world if X Corp were an Apple or a Samsung or a Sony where it'd be used in association with an actual product? I think so. We saw this with the Rockstar Consortium a few years ago, and I didn't really have a problem with it. (Yes, they moved to sell some of those patents a couple of years later, but that's entirely not the point.)

Sure, it would be nice if X Corp in the example was an Apple or a Samsung or a Sony, but I would certainly be against any kind of law or rule that required it. There are a few things troubling with your suggestion.

First, why should anyone be excluded from owning a patent. Patents are worth more in the free market, where anyone can bid for and own them. Just like any property, when you add onerous restrictions, the value drops. Also, who would police this? Who's to say one company is worthy of buying up this patent but another isn't. Seems very elitist to categorize things like this.

Second, the Rockstar Consortium was a nice headline, but isn't the fact that a bunch of mega-corporations got together and, as the name implies, consorted to muscle out competition very troubling? Seemed highly anti-competitive to me at the time, raised a bunch of anti-trust red flags. Interestingly, they did go on to litigate eventually, so by your definition, they were pretty trolly. Isn't it troubling to put the responsibility of buying up all these orphan patents onto the biggest corporations in the world?

Patents are property, just like any property, it's probably unconstitutional to deprive anyone of ownership without due process and without just compensation. Take this example, you buy a plot of land on which the previous owner build an awesome mountain bike course. You charge admission for people to ride this course. When someone doesn't pay, but they still ride in your course, you sue them seeking the admission fee for the times they rode without paying, some punitive damages for trying to cheat you, future costs because they won't agree to stop riding there, and the costs of the suit. How fair would it be if the government took away your right to sue trespassers like this, essentially giving you no recourse and taking away all incentive for the would-be riders to pay the entry fee, just because the government would rather that you farmed the land instead because they think that would be more productive and a better use of the soil? Seems really unfair to me.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I'm not really familiar with the case, but I can justify the comment. Let's say you own two companies, X and Y. X sues Y for an absurd amount, and you tell the people at Y not to fight it. X wins. Now you approach companies A, B, and, C and say look what the courts say is "fair". We only want payout * 30%. If you fight them you risk going against precedent and paying a higher rate. They might even get special treatment because they did t try and gouge you at first.

My Aunt and Uncle sued my parents for an accident that they were involved in while my dad was driving. Apparently the insurance company would only pay their medical costs if they sued. Their health insurance company didn't want to pay because the injuries were from an accident involving a car. They lived in Florida, which apparently has different laws. Only a lawyer could figure that one out...

The whole thing was a freak show...

But one corporate division suing another one? That's like screwing your sister to get back at you mother...
[doublepost=1453855399][/doublepost]

Did you feel the same way when Apple was suing over patents they claim were stolen?

The HUGE difference here is that the vast majority of Apple's patents are ones that they themselves created. They didn't buy them, they MADE them... The big difference is they didn't buy them at a yard sale, and make them into some huge freaking massive Earth shaking behemoth taking companies to their knees.

But keep defending patent trolls.
[doublepost=1453856697][/doublepost]

I am all for getting money out of politics and re-focusing the government on citizen interests, but I think it's a pretty big leap you're making from bad patent trolls to mafia thuggery and corrupt politicians.

We can have patent reform that addresses the issues of forum shopping (although it's a very minor issue if you look at the actual data) and clueless judges, but we must do so carefully without wrecking the value of patents.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with people or companies going to bankruptcies or estate sales to buy patents to then monetize them - their involvement is what makes the money in innovation flow. What is a bankruptcy for if not to sell assets to the highest bidder? If those patents aren't worth anything, then how do the creditors get paid back? If they can't get their money back this time, why would they invest in another startup next time? You say leveraging the patents is bad? But it's one mechanism of getting licensees to pay what they owe. Without the force of litigation, why would anyone pay at all? None of these companies are breaking the law. Is calling the police when someone is trespassing on your property 'legal thuggery'? This is the same thing.

On a tangent for getting the money out of politics: There was a bill in congress, sponsored by the buffoon in Alaska (Ted Stevens?) that would have required every person to buy a new CD or DVD player. The bill was about having the drives have the ability to 'tag' the discs with their serial number so that the disc was 'owned' by that player. Really. You buy a CD at the store, break it out on the way home, stick it in your car player, and *BAM* it's life mated to that drive. You try to play it at home, and discover that it's read locked. Yeah, that was really a possibility of happening.

Remember the 'biodegradable' DVDs? Yes, Circuit City, and some other nut bag outfit came up with the 'perfect way to enact DRM'. As soon as you opened the package, hermetically sealed, the disc started to decompose. Within a day or two, the DVD would be unusable...

THAT is our political milieu...

 

[Kabeyun]

Who's to say one company is worthy of buying up this patent but another isn't.

A simple test: is the purchasing company in the industry or not?

Second, the Rockstar Consortium was a nice headline, but isn't the fact that a bunch of mega-corporations got together and, as the name implies, consorted to muscle out competition very troubling? Seemed highly anti-competitive to me at the time, raised a bunch of anti-trust red flags. Interestingly, they did go on to litigate eventually, so by your definition, they were pretty trolly. Isn't it troubling to put the responsibility of buying up all these orphan patents onto the biggest corporations in the world?

Let's not kid ourselves. These patents aren't available to the guy who runs the corner deli. Only a rich corporation can afford them. (Patent trolls aren't poor waifs either.). And if a company that makes wireless gadgets owns a patent relating to that gadget, I have less of a problem with them protecting the IT that covers their product.

Take this example, you buy a plot of land on which the previous owner build an awesome mountain bike course. You charge admission for people to ride this course. When someone doesn't pay, but they still ride in your course, you sue them seeking the admission fee for the times they rode without paying, some punitive damages for trying to cheat you, future costs because they won't agree to stop riding there, and the costs of the suit. How fair would it be if the government took away your right to sue trespassers like this, essentially giving you no recourse and taking away all incentive for the would-be riders to pay the entry fee, just because the government would rather that you farmed the land instead because they think that would be more productive and a better use of the soil? Seems really unfair to me.

That's not an accurate analogy, though. You now own the park and you have the right to charge to use it. Now imagine if somehow someone else owned the concept of a similar mountain bike park and you had to pay them every time someone used the park you now own.

The problem today, particularly with tech patents, is that the tiniest minutiae have become essential to nearly every electronic gizmo* and FRAND isn't applied nearly widely enough (if I understand FRAND correctly). Powerful lawyers and lobbyists are working hard to limit FRAND and maintain the profitability of patent holding as a separate business by arguing standards-essential status. This leads to opportunistic exploitation. Everyone blinks, but suppose a company makes you pay for every blink if you blink once every 5-8 seconds (slower or faster blinkers aren't covered) because they own the rights to midrange blinking.

Btw, I appreciate your rational tone. There are plenty of people in there forums who get snotty or personal. Civil debate is sadly rare.

* Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations, 90 CALIF. L. REV. 1889, 1896 (2002)

 

[leroypants]

The HUGE difference here is that the vast majority of Apple's patents are ones that they themselves created. They didn't buy them, they MADE them... The big difference is they didn't buy them at a yard sale, and make them into some huge freaking massive Earth shaking behemoth taking companies to their knees.

But keep defending patent trolls.

Got it, when ever Apple sue over a patent it's justified and if someone sues Apple it's an outrage and they are patent trolls.....

 

[oneMadRssn]

A simple test: is the purchasing company in the industry or not?

That is still oversimplifying it. Would Apple be allowed to own and a patent dealing with chemical coatings, and enforce it against a pharmaceutical company? Apple does certainly use chemical coatings in their products, but they are not in the pharma industry at all. Would a bank that lends money to businesses in an industry that took ownership of a patent portfolio through foreclosure be able to enforce those patents against other companies in that industry? That test is really a nonstarter.

I can see it being applied if a patent owner is trying to get an injuction and block sales of infringing products - that is only fair if they are a real competitor or trying to become a real competitor. But if they are seeking only a reasonable royalty, there should be no such limits.

Let's not kid ourselves. These patents aren't available to the guy who runs the corner deli. Only a rich corporation can afford them. (Patent trolls aren't poor waifs either.). And if a company that makes wireless gadgets owns a patent relating to that gadget, I have less of a problem with them protecting the IT that covers their product.

I totally understand that if feels better when the patent portfolio and the owner's business line up. What if the owner's business is in licensing? Take ARM for example - they don't manufacture or sell any product per se. They just design and license. While they are very clever, they don't necessarily implement every invention they come up with, but they might still have a competetive or monetary reason to prevent others from using that invention. Would ARM be a troll for enforcing a patent they themselves do not practice but which is in the semiconductor industry?

And small businesses buy or trade ip often - while it is certainly costly, its not limited to just the huge guys.

That's not an accurate analogy, though. You now own the park and you have the right to charge to use it. Now imagine if somehow someone else owned the concept of a similar mountain bike park and you had to pay them every time someone used the park you now own.

You're trying to insert a patent into a patent analogy, its kind of meta but doesnt work. The land in my analogy is the patent, and the park is your choice of how to use it. You own the patent, and you have the right to charge others to use it (to borrow your words about the park). Whether you're using it in a way that angers people or pleases them doesn't matter. As the owner, you have the right to exclude and that is the end of the story.

The problem today, particularly with tech patents, is that the tiniest minutiae have become essential to nearly every electronic gizmo* and FRAND isn't applied nearly widely enough (if I understand FRAND correctly). Powerful lawyers and lobbyists are working hard to limit FRAND and maintain the profitability of patent holding as a separate business by arguing standards-essential status. This leads to opportunistic exploitation. Everyone blinks, but suppose a company makes you pay for every blink if you blink once every 5-8 seconds (slower or faster blinkers aren't covered) because they own the rights to midrange blinking.

Frand is something patent owners have to agree to, at least implicitly. Its a mechanism to ensure someone doesnt join a standard setting organization, influence them to adopt a technology covered by a patent they own, and then collect unreasonable rates when its too late to change the standard. It says if you willingly become part of the standard, you should do so fairly and openly. However, often standards will read on someones patent and that someone had no idea and no input and no control. In those cases, imposing frand would be somewhat unfair, it would let the standard setting organization capture and control something which is not theirs.

Btw, I appreciate your rational tone. There are plenty of people in there forums who get snotty or personal. Civil debate is sadly rare.

Thanks, and same back at ya. I like these civil debates.

 

[Kabeyun]

Would Apple be allowed to own and a patent dealing with chemical coatings, and enforce it against a pharmaceutical company? Apple does certainly use chemical coatings in their products, but they are not in the pharma industry at all.

Of course. Pharma coating something besides a gadget with Apple's patented coating doesn't let them off the hook.* However they're free to develop their own unique coating. TThe USPTO will decide if it's unique enough. If you patent an orange juicer, the company that then uses it without permission to make lemonade is going to have a problem.

I totally understand that if feels better when the patent portfolio and the owner's business line up. What if the owner's business is in licensing? Take ARM for example - they don't manufacture or sell any product per se. They just design and license.

Exactly! Design and license. They created something with their skill/ingenuity/whatever and then protected themselves from a bad actor copying it. Groovy. I never insisted that they then make it. They come up with great chip architecture but they're not a foundry. Patent trolls create nothing.

You're trying to insert a patent into a patent analogy, its kind of meta but doesnt work.

Agree to disagree.

--------

* Actually, patentable things come in two flavors: something new, or a novel use of something extant. Again, the USPTO is the arbiter of just how novel is novel.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Of course. Pharma coating something besides a gadget with Apple's patented coating doesn't let them off the hook.* However they're free to develop their own unique coating. TThe USPTO will decide if it's unique enough. If you patent an orange juicer, the company that then uses it without permission to make lemonade is going to have a problem.

You're starting to talk about validity when you start bringing in novelty and non-obviousness. The USPTO certainly has issues with granting some invalid patents, and there are now very efficient and quick ways to solve that for accused infringers (read about inter partes review). For the purposes of this discussion about who can or cannot enforce a patent, let's presume all patents are valid.

Exactly! Design and license. They created something with their skill/ingenuity/whatever and then protected themselves from a bad actor copying it. Groovy. I never insisted that they then make it. They come up with great chip architecture but they're not a foundry. Patent trolls create nothing.

Patent trolls don't create nothing, they get inventors paid. Let's stretch the ARM and pharma example further. Say in trying to solve a problem with coatings on transistors, an ARM engineer looks to publications in pharma and finds an article talking about coatings A, B, and C that did not work. The engineer combines this with his knowledge of coatings in semiconductors and the failures described in the article, and invents coating D. (This actually happens, we call it cross-pollination.) Coating D turns out not to be super useful for semiconductors, but turns out it's great for pharma. ARM has no interest in pharma technology, they don't care, it's not their business to try and sell or find licencors for this technology, nor do they even know how to value it since they have no expertise in it. Why shouldn't ARM be able to sell this patent to a group of investors who are willing to take on the costs and risks of trying to monetize the technology? Surely there are scenarios where ARM would rather take the guaranteed lump-sum payment, and let someone else take the gamble on what it's actually worth.

This actually happens all the time. Inventor invents a good technology, but doesn't care about monetizing it or licensing or anything like that; rather inventor just wants to move on to the next invention. What you call trolls, they pay that inventor for the patent, and they take on the risk of monetizing it. It might be worthless, or it might be gold. It requires significant investment and time just to find one. They do this legwork, and when they identify potential licencors that refuse to negotiate or refuse to pay reasonable royalties, they sue. What else can they do? They paid the inventor fair and square for this property.

If you say a group of investors, or a fund, or a shell company* can't enforce patents, that's essentially saying they can't buy patents. If they can't buy patents, inventors don't get paid as much, and there is no incentive to explore innovation outside your specific field, and no incentive to explore unlikely areas even in your field. In sum, innovation would be stifled and investment in startups would be stifled.

* Shell company sounds bad on it's face - but there are a bunch of new rules that require "real parties in interest" to be disclosed in pretty much all patent cases, and not doing so has very harsh penalties. Using a shell company isn't to hide the identify of who benefits, it's more of an efficient way to organize and to handle taxes and such.

 

[thefourthpope]

I'm not really familiar with the case, but I can justify the comment. Let's say you own two companies, X and Y. X sues Y for an absurd amount, and you tell the people at Y not to fight it. X wins. Now you approach companies A, B, and, C and say look what the courts say is "fair". We only want payout * 30%. If you fight them you risk going against precedent and paying a higher rate. They might even get special treatment because they did t try and gouge you at first.

That makes sense. Not in an "I agree, what a sensible practice" way, but in an "I can see that happening" way. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[kdarling]

The HUGE difference here is that the vast majority of Apple's patents are ones that they themselves created. They didn't buy them, they MADE them... The big difference is they didn't buy them at a yard sale, and make them into some huge freaking massive Earth shaking behemoth taking companies to their knees.

VirnetX is composed of the scientists who created the patents they now own.

They came up with the inventions while working for SAIC. After they left, they managed to buy the patents for their inventions so they could profit from them.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Got it, when ever Apple sue over a patent it's justified and if someone sues Apple it's an outrage and they are patent trolls.....

Get over yourself... That's not what I said and you know it...
[doublepost=1454289032][/doublepost]

VirnetX is composed of the scientists who created the patents they now own.

They came up with the inventions while working for SAIC. After they left, they managed to buy the patents for their inventions so they could profit from them.

Okay, so, like, one out of how many patent trolls?

The problem is that the patent office issues patents that should never have been filed in the first place, let alone been entertained as being valid, and even worse, GIFTED patent protections!

Patents are abused more than a rented mule, it seems...

If it is true that Apple 'stole' or violated patents that are so heavily invested by the actual creators, then Apple really screwed the pooch dead, and dismembered...

But that is still a beside on the issues of the misuse of patents. They are rife for misuse and just create more cash for greedy lawyers and weasel teams of 'researchers'...

For every valid patent, there are, what? Hundreds? Of lawyer groups fleecing corporations, and others, for patents they 'bought' and are riding to the 'promised land' of limitless cash...

My bad for assuming they were a trolling 'get rich quick' scheme...

If it's true Apple 'stole' their patented technology, BAD APPLE, BAD BAD APPLE! They need to either pay, or buy the patents...

 

[kdarling]

The thing is, patent holding companies do have a legit place. For example, if an inventor cannot afford to produce his/her invention, then sometimes the best choice is to license/sell it to a patent holding company which has the manpower to market it.

I think one useful change our patent system needs, is to add the independent creation defense, same as we have for copyrights and trade secrets. If someone independently invents the same method, then they should not have to pay.

(The recent law changes did add something similar. You're safe if you had marketed something using the same invention, at least a year before the patent was filed for by someone else.)

This would help prevent companies from being held for ransom even though they had independently come up with the same idea.

 

[magiic]

Patents are obviously very important, but you should not be able to patent such broad or basic ideas

Or I should patent the method of putting pants on and sue everyone

Then you could sue the pants off of everybody!

 

[kdarling]

If it's true Apple 'stole' their patented technology, BAD APPLE, BAD BAD APPLE! They need to either pay, or buy the patents...

Well, "stole" is not quite the right word for one of the patents. Willfully continued to infringe is more like it.

Remember, even if you independently invented something, you're still infringing on a patent if someone else filed for it first. And if you actually knew about their patent, then it's willful infringement and subject to triple damages.

(An example is that Samsung didn't copy any utility patent code that Apple sued them over. But that didn't matter, because the sheer fact that they independently came up with a similar method to what Apple had managed to patent, means they legally infringed.)

In this case, Apple had years ago tried to patent one of the same methods that VirnetX did. However, instead of helping Apple in the trial, this independent creation ironically worked against them:

You see, Apple's lawyers had tried to claim (like lawyers always do) that the VirnetX patents were invalid. Unfortunately for them, they also stifled an Apple engineer's testimony that he had tried to patent the same method, but had found that VirnetX already had done so. Ooops!

Not only did this prove that Apple knew about VirnetX's patent, but they were trying to hide that fact. This is one reason the judge added extra royalty penalties for Apple.