Are you joking? They even copied 30-pin dock icon on chargers. They copied everything they were able to copy.
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's $503 Million Patent Win Over Apple Vacated on Appeal in Mixed Result
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Will you continue it if I agree?
The smoking gun was that they had documents showing how to copy iPhone features in Samsung phones.
[automerge]1574668633[/automerge]
It's what they say internally too. The patent trolls are likened to bandits because they play the same sort of game. When hit with these lawsuits, it's better for the big corp to settle out of court for that particular instance, but doing that made the problem worse because it encouraged more to try it. So now they fight in court despite the cost. They care more that the troll doesn't make money.
Sure patents should be protected regardless of use, but that's also abusable.
Last edited:
This company isn’t breaking any laws and if the tech that they hold patemts for is used. Apple has to pay them. As does any other company.
Last edited by a moderator:
You realize you’re talking about different things, right? You’re talking about legality in its current state, and you’re right. He’s talking about morality, and he’s right. The landlord might be within his rights to start eviction proceedings on a little old widow who’s one day late on the rent, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Patent trolls might be within their rights, but no one, not even the staunchest troll supporter, could successfully argue that sitting on unused patents to poach settlements & verdicts was the original point of patents.
Last edited by a moderator:
Morals are not what counts legally. The world is based on capitalism. As of now no laws are being broken. Morals are highly overrated. You always look out for yourself or your family
Last edited by a moderator:
Uh, yes I can. Not the "sitting" part, because I'm really not sure what you mean and the doctrine of laches and equitable estoppel prohibits a patent owner from warehousing patents and not sueing when they know of potential infringement.
But the original point of patents includes patents being transferable assets that can be enforced by new owners. The system of patents only works if patent have value. Patents have value if they can be bought and sold on a marketplace. Patents have value on said marketplace if the buyer, new owner, can find licensees to pay for a license. Licensees will only pay a license if they are compelled through threat of litigation.
I'm not a "troll" supporter, but I think the term "patent troll" is used WAY too broadly these days to basically include all plaintiffs. The companies that actually abuse patents are actually very very rare. VirnetX is not a troll.
not to be pedantic, but https://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-conte...ity-Baby-Products-Mar.-21-2017-No.-15-446.pdf
So... is there a point to this other than posting a link to an opinion that generally confirms what I said?
Simply that laches in patent law is pretty much dead, as per the Supreme Court.
It's not dead per se, the principles still exist and are indeed promoted by 35 USC 286. In other words, 35 USC 286 as interpreted by SCOTUS gives certainty and clarity to the time limit, but do not overrule the equitable principles at all. Basically, 6 years is now a definite line in the sand, but it's still iffy. Claims brought after 6 years are still subject to the common law laches defense.
Even though that decision is often viewed as friendly to patent owners, I argue it's a split. Six years out of a 20 year term is a relatively short amount of time for patent owners to discover and investigate potential infringement.
Like I said, I was being pedantic. And while laches is still plead, I am unaware of any recent cases where it’s gone anywhere.
Agreed it's rarely an issue that reaches trial - though I've certainly seen defendants cause some trouble in discovery and motion practice using the issue of laches; only to be dropped later. I think that's because it's a pretty weak defense long term. It's not a great look to hang your hat on the equities when it looks like conceding infringement and validity.
Yes it is "property troll". In some countries the state can take back these "unused land" after a certain period being languished.
In Colorado, you can lose your water rights if you do not document and prove that you are using them. This mostly affects agricultural uses.