VirnetX Asks for More Money From Apple, Calls on Court to Shut Down FaceTime and iMessage

[macfacts]

...1) 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. ...

2) 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?

1) So spell it out for me. Why is it a bad thing and bad for who, patent inventor or patent theif or society?

2) I agree one of the big issues are the validity of patents and the allowance of software patents.

 

[827538]

I don't understand how the likes of Apple/Microsoft/Google which are collectively worth a staggering amount of money just don't band together and use their collective might to change the patent system by buying, sorry, lobbying politicians and crush these patent trolls?

Just checked, they are collectively worth over $1.5 trillion... Pretty sure they could change the system if they wanted to.

 

[jdclifford]

This is the first I've heard of them. Does not seem so "irreparable" damage has been done,

The fact that this is the first time you are hearing of them is probably the "irreparable damage"!

 

[Kabeyun]

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.

I know that. I read it. I actually thought is was, if accurate, well-informed. No need to jump in and get snarky. I was responding to the poster in general terms.

Going forward, before posting anything I'll be sure first to search to see if kdarling had anything wise to say.

 

[kdarling]

I know that. I read it. I actually thought is was, if accurate, well-informed. No need to jump in and get snarky. I was responding to the poster in general terms.

My sincere apologies if you were offended.

Wasn't trying to be snarky, or to single you out. Since your post seemed unsure, I simply assumed you had not read mine. And no I"m not always wise. But yes, I try very hard to be accurate. Been doing that for over 35 years online under my own name.

So it was intended only to reassure you (and to inform people who come in at the end of threads, often because of lack of time), that yes, this "patent holding company" is actually run and staffed by the active original inventors... and thus is not what most people think of as a troll.

 

[AsherN]

It is possible for a company's entire business model to be either create IP or buy other people's IP and license it. That does not make them a troll.

Despite the nebulous titles of those patents, they do go into implementation details. AAMOF, the idea for using broad titles and initial description is to facilitate patent search.

 

[polaris20]

Patent examiners aren't just any schmoe off the street - remember, Albert Einstein started out as a patent clerk.

Well, they're certainly ignoring a lot of stuff when it comes to technology.

 

[Gasu E.]

Why does it really matter if they make a product that uses their IP? Wouldn't you want to be paid for an idea you had patented that someone else is using?

Whether they have a product goes right to the heart of their claim of "irreparable harm" and demand for an injunction. If they are just getting royalties, there is no irreparable harm if they get paid eventually.

 

[Marshall73]

It would cost Apple less to have the members of this company dealt with in some sort of 'accident'

 

[fhall1]

Whether they have a product goes right to the heart of their claim of "irreparable harm" and demand for an injunction. If they are just getting royalties, there is no irreparable harm if they get paid eventually.

Unless the royalty stream is what they depend on to keep the doors open and people employed. You're saying paying them "eventually" wouldn't cause irreparable harm if they go bankrupt, sell off all assets, and let everyone go (dissolving the business) before they get paid - because they "eventually" might get paid?

 

[Gav2k]

Should be thrown out.

If you look into it and you don't need to look hard they run a clever scam.

The have a patent. They wait till a big company starts breaching it. They wait a bit more then develope a ***** app themselves... Then they sue.

The app they have listed in this case was in beta mid 2015 ffs. How long have we had iMessage... And FaceTime....

 

[dilbert99]

Why does it really matter if they make a product that uses their IP? Wouldn't you want to be paid for an idea you had patented that someone else is using?

If the patent shouldn't have been awarded then that is a whole other situation. Did you also know that part of holding a patent is having to defend it or you lose the patent regardless of it's validity?

The problem is that patents are given out willy nilly.
Being given a patent for being able to send a message on a phone is silly (I know the patent must be a bit different to that but you get the idea).

 

[jonnysods]

There's always text messaging, Google Voice, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Hangouts, and many many other similar messaging options.

True. I use texting through iMessage, not everyone has all the other services you've listed. But I can integrate texts and iMessages with drag and drop pic sending and it's seamless across my devices.

 

[nStyle]

I couldn't care less about Apple's profits, but at the same time I think trolls like these just need to be killed off (as in, not allowed to run a muck within our legal system).

 

[mightydill]

Is this company a patent troll or do they actually ship a product that uses the patents that are some how affected by iMessage and FaceTime?

[doublepost=1464706093][/doublepost]They developed VPN on demand and have a product for 10/year that does the equivalent of face time and imessaging. But why buy it when its free on the iphone and ipad. Samsung is using their patents also. They are next in line to be sued. However if apple looses then Samsung will settle out of court.
[doublepost=1464706189][/doublepost]

Should be thrown out.

If you look into it and you don't need to look hard they run a clever scam.

The have a patent. They wait till a big company starts breaching it. They wait a bit more then develope a ***** app themselves... Then they sue.

The app they have listed in this case was in beta mid 2015 ffs. How long have we had iMessage... And FaceTime....

[doublepost=1464706341][/doublepost]Wrong. The first case won against apple for this patent was 2012. Apple has been trying to invalidate their patents before that.
[doublepost=1464706461][/doublepost]

So let me get this straight --

How long has FaceTime and iMessage been out for? Six years?

What "irreparable" damage has been done to a company most people haven't even heard of until now?

Looks like a company that's ran and managed by a bunch of losers.

[doublepost=1464706810][/doublepost]Yep, six years, exactly how long this lawsuit has been going on. Virnetx awarded 325 million in 2012 against apple. Apple appealed and has been using their patents all during the appeal process claiming they would develop a work around. That is why the judge awarded 650 million in Feb 2016. Apple is dragging this through the courts trying to bankrupt Virnetx. They know they are using Virnetx patents.

 

[kdarling]

If you look into it and you don't need to look hard they run a clever scam.

The have a patent. They wait till a big company starts breaching it. They wait a bit more then develope a ***** app themselves... Then they sue.

The trial had nothing to do with their app, only their patents. That's all they needed to win.

You don't have to be using your patent, to be able to stop others from using it.

For example, last year Apple sued Samsung over a patented method that Apple themselves do not use. Because they could.