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.
VirnetX Asks for More Money From Apple, Calls on Court to Shut Down FaceTime and iMessage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's always text messaging, Google Voice, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Hangouts, and many many other similar messaging options.
None of which integrate with iOS and Macs. They're not the same.
They are alternatives, but, sure, not the same in all respects. That said, various ones have desktop/web versions in addition to working on iOS (as well as other platforms too) which make them somewhat close in that respect, even if not the same.
Thats harsh... just forcing the exes to wear and use the AW would be punishment enough.
However, apple do this type of litigation to others so they can expect nothing less in return.
Pay up apple and move on.
I think your reading comprehension is lacking. You flatly declare me to be wrong and then proceed to explain how the current flawed system works. But that's not what I was taking about. My point was, and still is, the current flawed patent system does not match the founders intent very well at all. The original intent as described in the constitution, was to encourage innovation by granting creators temporary exclusive license to make use of new non-obvious innovations (which implies the innovation would eventually become usable by all). Far too many patents are granted for things that would be obvious to most any developer faced with the same problem, leading to a get-rich-quick aspect in the current system, where the first to file paperwork for something that many have thought of, or will quickly think of when presented with the same problem, gets an unreasonable monopoly and an ability to charge others a tax for solving the same problem in the same obvious way. I defy you to cite any reference where the founding fathers ever said anything remotely like, "you know, inventing a business model called 'patent trolling' sounds like a great idea, let's write that into the constitution." Regardless of how the system works now, I stand by my assertion that these flawed bits were not the founder's intent.
This is the comment of the thread. US patent law was designed for - and works for - far simpler technologies and innovations. Not for modern software (or hardware, frankly). The system is badly broken, and everyone involved knows it, but a lot of people make a lot of money off the way it is now, so I wouldn't expect a big change anytime soon.
Shutdown FaceTime and iMessage? I seriously doubt that will ever happen.
Patent trolls sue small companies too? You really are lacking in brain cells if you think that getting rid of companies that only own patents but sell no products isn't a good thing. patents are to help fund R&D not drain it with legal fees.
The main issue is the broad nature of tech patents. It should be impossible for a patent to cover processes, but should instead cover specific coding to achieve things. Can someone really have an original idea that is so unique it should even need to be protected because the idea is so good?
The company is only worth $286 million.... I don't know what debt they have.... but it looks like it could be cheaper to buy that payout. They would then own the patents which is never a bad thing.
Was it not Apple that sued Samsung for things such as a swipe to the left from right?
Karma Apple
Karma Apple
Their IP is part of their company. I would say that if their patent is strong and valuable, then their business hasn't completely failed.
I am sure you know every company responsible for every patent of every product you use then? The damage could be from a lack of payment on licensing that they are/were do. Perhaps the reason their company has not done well is because their IP has not generated the funds needed to grow the business. I honestly don't know. But just because someone hasn't heard of them doesn't negate their claim.
[doublepost=1464350653][/doublepost]
Actually - if their patent is held up - they aren't just worth 286 million are they. Because the value of their patent is greater than that.
And what do we really know about negotiations. Maybe Apple took their chances and are now being forced to "pay the piper." Not every company is for sale. And Apple shouldn't just buy companies because they have cash in the bank. Any stockholder should be very scared of that mentality. This isn't the first time Apple has eschewed paying licensing fees or has stalled on negotiations and have been brought to court. Sometimes it works to their favor. Sometimes it doesn't.
Yes, but the question is whether or not it's their idea. If it is, fine and bully for them. An no, they don't need to make it (yet) to defend the idea. But if an idea's so fabulous, would you want to develop it or sell it to someone who could?
I think the term patent troll applies to a company whose business model is to acquire patents for the purpose of creatively hunting for lawsuit winnings or (in some cases extortive) licensing fees. I don't know enough about VirtnetX to know if this applies to them. This article describes them as a patent holding company. Nothing wrong with that if its their own ideas they're holding, but it just seems repugnant and not particularly innovative if they sit there, not developing anything or making anything, suing people.
I agree Apple should just pay for what they stole but realistically they never will pay or be held accountable for stealing.
It's their ideas. See my post #35 here. In fact, it's usually a good idea in threads like this to do a thread search to see if I've posted some facts that were missing in the article.
Apple itself uses that legal term in almost every one of their patent lawsuits against other companies.
You see, saying that the harm is "irreparable" is to claim that even fines and back royalties are not enough "to make things right"... but that the product itself should be banned. This puts extra pressure on the defendant to give in.
Examples: all the times that Apple pushed Judge Koh to ban the sale of Samsung products with slide to unlock or universal search, etc. Even though to the layman, Apple, with its hundreds of billions in profits, was hardly suffering what most people would call irreparable harm
While some of he patents were filed back around 1998 - 2002, they were not granted until ~ 2005 - 2011. The inventors formed VirnetX in 2005 and acquired the first set of patents in 2006-7 from their old employers... at which point they immediately sued Microsoft.
So in this case, they did not "sit on patents for 20 years".
Moreover, these guys at VirnetX have continued to invent new technologies along the way. Unlike a traditional dumb troll that buys up others' work, this is more like a group of smart scientists who want to profit from their own work.
Last edited:
That's true, they're close. But each of those also requires an account. So we have to get each of our loved ones to go download the same app, make an account, and make sure to keep it logged in and on if they ever have to reboot their device. Much easier to just use iMessage and Facetime. SMS isn't always even an option.
They've paid up already, this time is about shutting the services down.
If FaceTime and iMessage were going to damage the company forever, they had no real business plan. Good ideas can on,y go so far.
Being a public company I suppose a subsidiary of Apple could do a hostile takeover of the company.
NYSEMKT:VHC
Mkt cap 244.89M
Float 86.96%
NYSEMKT:VHC
Mkt cap 244.89M
Float 86.96%
Last edited:
I'm another who'd have serious problems with losing FaceTime. Yes, there are alternatives, but if someone can give me one that works as well or better than FT in the UK for clear sound quality and (crucially) mostly perfect audio-video sync, I'd love to know. I'm deaf and FaceTime has literally revolutionised my ability to keep in contact with my family. Partly because of how it's embedded into iOS devices, but also because it works. My grandmother had an android tablet a short while ago and we tried Skype--again--and it was flaky. FaceTime on the same network is flawless.
It's not the 'justice system' that needs to go after them, it's the prancing tarts in Congress that need to go after them, but since they are so enamored with people that have lots of cash, and that cash is used for 'speech', the outcome is not going to be anywhere close to what you would ever hope for.
Please read my post #35. There's not enough available stock for that, among other things.
And golly, why does everyone think that "buy the other company" is the right thing to do?
Perhaps instead they should do like Microsoft has done in some of these cases... invest in the company themselves and get a cheaper license that way, along with access to future inventions.
No sir, Apple has not paid. Instead, they're appealing, trying to invalidate the patents, and generally dragging their feet.
That's why VirnetX is asking for an injunction. Same as Apple does in their own lawsuits.
See my post #66 about what "irreparable harm" is used for.
But independently coming up with the same idea means that you have to, in a court, prove that you had no direct, or indirect experience with the product in question (as I interpret the law). That's part of what makes patenting software so troublesome. Someone could, and with the crooked courts in many states maintain, a patent on some arcane, yet base part, of computing, and effectively throw the whole industry into the toilet.
Imagine if someone from Xerox PARC comes up with a patent on the early Ethernet network system. The whole industry would be shaken to the ground. At some point, copyright and patent law has the ability to dramatically hog tie the entire technology industry.
[doublepost=1464361041][/doublepost]
Microsoft used to do that. Antitrust laws were a bit laxer at that point...
My comprehension is fine.
Your opinion regarding how the system "should" work is moot. How it currently works is the only thing relevant.
Flawed or not, it's the law of the land until changed by Congress.
Current law allows for "obvious" patents to be invalidated. There is a process in place for that right now. You go to court.
Inventors/IP owners must defend them and prove they are unique enough to retain the patent.
I do agree that software should never fall into the realm of the patent process... copyright maybe, but a patent... no.
I agree with the part about it would be nice if independent invention was a patent defense like it is for copyrights.
I don't agree about "crooked courts". Unless you mean biased courts, like the ones in California who seem to side with Apple all the time. Or most any, who seem to side against foreign companies.
The rest of them, in places like Delaware and especially Texas, simply tend to side with the patent holder.
That is what I was eluding to.
The courts in Texas have been a boon for trolls as they go to those courts, and will nearly all the time, or it sure seems like that. What town is it that has whole streets, parks, and public buildings named after famous corporations just to woo them, or buy opinion?
Texas is like a whole 'nother country. A third world kangaroo despotic hell hole. Let them succeed I say...