Patent Troll VirnetX Awarded $626M In Damages From Apple (arstechnica.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Troll VirnetX Awarded $626M In Damages From Apple (arstechnica.com)

Posted by timothy on Wednesday February 3, 2016 @09:11PM from the made-their-play-got-what-they-wanted dept.

Tackhead writes: Having won a $200M judgement against Microsoft in 2010, lost a $258M appeal against Cisco in 2013, and having beaten Apple for $368M in 2012, only to see the verdict overturned in 2014, patent troll VirnetX is back in the news, having been awarded $626M in damages arising from the 2012 Facetime patent infringement case against Apple.

134 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Require that patents be defended by spork+invasion · 2016-02-03 21:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Some of the problems with software patents could be solved with an idea from trademarks. Require that patents be defended or else they're lost. This wouldn't affect companies that legitimately do research, develop patents, and license the patents. One criticism would be that this favors big companies who have the ability to defend their patents at the expense of individuals and small businesses who don't have those resources. I don't think the criticism is valid because the playing field is already tilted very much in favor of big corporations and because law firms would market to inventors to help defend their patents in exchange for a share of the royalties. A legitimate patent is valuable enough that an inventor won't have a hard time finding legal representation to help defend it. This would squash the tactics of patent trolls and reduce the patent wars between big companies like Apple vs. Samsumg.

--
I hate all anonymous shitbags. Log in, you filthy bastards.
1. Re:Require that patents be defended by greenfruitsalad · 2016-02-03 21:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  instead of defend, it should be 'use'. unused patent just stifles innovation. you wanna keep it, use it.
2. Re:Require that patents be defended by thegarbz · 2016-02-03 21:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That devalues the concept of an idea and intellectual property on the whole.
  Not that I think that's a bad idea, just that it would result in a fundamental change to how modern civilisation works.
  Hmm I should patent the concept.
3. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 21:41 · Score: 0
  
  instead of defend, it should be 'use'. unused patent just stifles innovation. you wanna keep it, use it.
  Once again, this only hurts individuals. Large businesses can do a good job preventing you from using your patent to make the product. Being unable to use it, you lose it and the businesses takes your work for free. No thanks... bad idea.
4. Re:Require that patents be defended by spork+invasion · 2016-02-03 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. If your business is research and development, licensing those patents to others for use in production and using the royalties to fund more r&d, that would run afoul of a requirement that the patent holder use their patents. I don't think it's an abuse, though, because you're contributing to innovation by conducting your own research. The business model makes sense; just because a business funds r&d doesn't mean they have the ability to bring those ideas to production. The abuse is from patent holders who neither conduct r&d nor produce anything, just wait for their patents to be infringed and then pounce with lawsuits.
  
  --
  I hate all anonymous shitbags. Log in, you filthy bastards.
5. Re:Require that patents be defended by JaredOfEuropa · 2016-02-03 22:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That doesn't solve anything, this isn't just about submarine patents. As soon as a patent troll is awarded their patent on "Activity X that has been practised for millennia, but on the Internet", they can start "defending" it by having their lawyer sent letters to any infringing party who started using it after the application was filed.
  
  Maybe we shouldn't have software patents at all, nor award patents on stupid, trivial stuff. Or, since it is rather hard to define exactly what is trivial and what isn't, we could adjust the duration of a patent instead. Invest a few billion in discovering a new medicine, and yeah maybe you deserve a couple of patents with a long validity. Spend a few million on a think tank to come up with good ideas, and you'd deserve some patents with a duration that depends on how good those ideas are. Be the first to come up with a clever little algo in the course of your normal work, and maybe you ought to get a patent as well even if it's for something more or less "obvious to someone skilled in the arts"... but only one valid for a few years.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
6. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 22:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The concept of intellectual property is just a sick idea of the lawyer class to tap the wealth of innovation... at the cost of others.
  Everyone worth her salt is standing on the shoulders of giants, and *knowing* it. I owe far more to Galileo and Newton and Leibnitz than I owe to Apple or Samsung or Microsoft.
7. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 22:29 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe we shouldn't have software patents at all
  My stand on this is "copyright yes, patent no". If you can do the same thing I'm doing with your OWN code, have at it. If you copy my proprietary code, then fuck you, I'll sue your ass.
8. Re:Require that patents be defended by Tom · 2016-02-03 22:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Most patents on software are fundamentally wrong the way they are being issued.
  A patent should be about your brilliant invention of how to do something, in detail, that nobody else could figure out. It should not be about what to do, without any details on the how.
  The patent on the steam engine did not read "a machine that produces torque". Everyone could see that such a machine would be useful, the devil is in figuring out how to build it. But a lot of software (and design) patents are of the "a button that makes you do this cool thing" kind. They leave out the actual technical details, which is why they are so broad and abusable.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
9. Re:Require that patents be defended by greenfruitsalad · 2016-02-03 22:44 · Score: 2
  
  developing and licensing is using the patent. as you said, trolls simply wait for others to encroach. that's a completely wrong approach.
10. Re:Require that patents be defended by Trogre · 2016-02-03 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe we shouldn't have software patents at all
  Maybe?
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
11. Re: Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 22:54 · Score: 0
  
  Whether it's in use or not, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that folks on Slashdot would still call you a patent troll.
12. Re:Require that patents be defended by ERJ · 2016-02-03 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  And what about if the cost to entry of the concept is too high for the individual? A large corp could just sit and wait till the "implementation" period expired and then grab the idea. How long do you have to get to the "use" period before you lose the patent?
  
  No, the issue is that patents are granted for stupid, unoriginal things. If only good, unique ideas were allowed then this would not be the same issue.
13. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  If your business is research and development, licensing those patents to others for use in production and using the royalties to fund more r&d, that would run afoul of a requirement that the patent holder use their patents.
  Not necessarily. That's a fairly straightforward example of a patent being used. But the catch is so often in details like "what is the definition of 'use'?" - does it exclude reasonable usage and does it include loopholes for trolls?
14. Re:Require that patents be defended by spork+invasion · 2016-02-03 23:17 · Score: 2
  
  As one of the other replies noted, utility patents should be about how to do something, not what to do. I don't really think articles of manufacture and compositions of matter apply to software. However, the categories of processes and machines seem to do so. If you design a unique and novel algorithm to do something useful, that seems to qualify as a process. Putting algorithms together in a truly unique and novel way would seem to qualify as a machine. As long as you're patenting how to actually accomplish something rather than patenting the outcome, it seems reasonable to me. I agree that the length of patents is an issue, but I don't think it's easy to say that one patent is more novel than another, thus deserving longer protection. However, the term of 20 years from the earliest filing is probably not appropriate in some sectors. The reason a longer patent on a drug (a composition of matter) makes sense is because of the regulatory hurdles that have to be cleared before bringing a drug to production. On the other hand, 20 years in the software industry is an eternity and is much too long. I'd say that a drug deserves a patent from 17 years from the date of issuance. A software patent, however, might only deserve three or four years from the date of issuance. It really depends on the sector, the pace of innovation, and the time it takes to bring an idea to market. I recognize that software is unique in that, aside from bandwidth or distribution media, the cost of production is essentially flat regardless of how much is produced. That's what enables the free (as in beer) model for software that really isn't viable for anything with a physical product. Of course, that's a problem for paying royalties that are typically per-product. I get why people call for eliminating software patents, but the consequence of that is to provide less incentive to conduct research. I can't think of a good way to simultaneously avoid both problems.
  
  --
  I hate all anonymous shitbags. Log in, you filthy bastards.
15. Re:Require that patents be defended by Lumpy · 2016-02-03 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  Good. I think no software patents should be allowed.
  It's all mathematics, and math should NOT be patented.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
16. Re: Require that patents be defended by O('_')O_Bush · 2016-02-03 23:46 · Score: 2
  
  They aren't patenting the math, they are patenting the idea. If you wanna get really hand wavy about it, everything is just math.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
17. Re:Require that patents be defended by ILongForDarkness · 2016-02-03 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of people have ideas that they don't want to own a business in. These companies are full of lawyers usually. Lawyers generally speaking don't have the expertise or desire to develop a company that markets a Face Time/Skype product. By use I think it should just require that you don't sit on the patent you actively offer it for licensing. Of course the whole idea of patents is that they expire so it doesn't "stifle" innovation any more than it would if say MS got the patent and never licensed it to anyone else for its whole term.
18. Re:Require that patents be defended by ILongForDarkness · 2016-02-03 23:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So what? If your expertise isn't running a manufacturing company/marketing department but you spend your time coming up with good ideas that someone else can use to do so, why should you work for free? Are you saying working with your hands/mouth is more valuable than working with your mind?
19. Re:Require that patents be defended by mwvdlee · 2016-02-04 00:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Patents were created to benefit the public, not the inventor.
  The value of patents is in the sharing of inventions for public use, the cost of patents is a period of protection given to the inventor.
  Requiring inventions to be used by the patent owner or else allow use by the public seems perfectly in line with the concept of patents.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
20. Re:Require that patents be defended by swb · 2016-02-04 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  I think a time window for actual usage of a patent in a marketed product would be a useful check. If your patent isn't in a marketed product within, say, five years of issuance it would become public domain, and if it stops being used in a marketed product after 5 years it would also become public domain.
  I think part of the problem also could not just be patent trolls as we know them, but companies like IBM that attack a technology sector with R&D and obtain dozens of patents they have no intention of actually developing into products but manage to patent enough things in an area that it's no longer practical to enter that field because most of the key techniques are already patented. It's kind of a land rush mentality where they're not actually interested in using the plots of land they claim, they just want to make sure nobody else can.
  It's even worse when this is done defensively to guard a product they already make so that new innovations that may obsolete a cash cow product can be kept from the market. To extend the land rush analogy, they buy up all the plots of land so that the only remaining option is to rent an apartment in the crummy building they already have.
21. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  There are also other ways to have a system that is much less broken. In Europe some countries have patent systems which require you to describe the process of achieving your goal instead of the goal itself. If I can produce the same result in another way? Your patent does not apply to me. This way blatant stupidity like patenting slide-to-unlock or patenting a set of genes just doesn't cause trouble even if patents of this kind are granted.
22. Re: Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  They aren't patenting the math, they are patenting the idea. If you wanna get really hand wavy about it, everything is just math.
  This , this, 10000000000000 times this.
  If software patents worked the same as patents, that is to say give you a time limited monopoly on an implementation (wether physically realised or not is irrelevant) it would be acceptable. By implementation I mean writing down the fucking algorithm and present it to the patent office. Then we wouldn't have these problems to begin with. All the strife, the misery coming from software patents is because we're allowing people to patent IDEAS not algorithms (implementations).
23. Re:Require that patents be defended by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-04 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  instead of defend, it should be 'use'. unused patent just stifles innovation. you wanna keep it, use it.
  Wasn't there originally supposed to be an exploitation requirement for patents? Why did that die?
24. Re:Require that patents be defended by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-04 01:04 · Score: 2
  
  "Patents were created to benefit the public, not the inventor."
  Patents gave investors a monopoly of specified term on use of the idea. What they vitally gave to the public was revelation of method. Before patent was invented, innovators simply kept their ideas secret for as long as possible. The Murano glassmakers kept their advantage in the market for centuries by having their own staff of ninjas fan out across Europe, killing off anyone else who used their methods.
  With the coming of industry, trade secret became unwieldy and was replaced by patent.
25. Re:Require that patents be defended by sribe · 2016-02-04 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  A patent should be about your brilliant invention of how to do something, in detail, that nobody else could figure out. It should not be about what to do, without any details on the how.
  That, combined with patent examiners knowledgeable enough to recognize and reject software patents that consist of going from requirements to design by gluing together well-know techniques, would eliminate the real problems. It wouldn't satisfy RMS, but it would limit software patents to the extremely rare ones that are truly novel and non-obvious.
26. Re: Require that patents be defended by gstoddart · 2016-02-04 01:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're not supposed to be able to patent an idea, you're only supposed to be able to patent an invention ... far too many patents are really little more than the idea of "doing something kinda like this".
  So many of them describe a concept already in use, or which is exactly the same in the physical world ... but digital.
  And then seemingly it becomes a magic device whereby you can claim that "a system and methodology for doing something which is commonplace, but involves a computer and a network" is a unique invention.
  In the many years I've been aware of software patents, the ones I've seen more or less boil down to software analogs of things we've already seen, and stuff many of us would have learned in a CS degree (and which was already common practice).
  Then you just write it in fancy sounding bullshit, and pass it off as a unique invention -- and the morons at the patent office, whose only real criteria is if the checks clear, will rubber stamp it and suddenly you have a patent.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
27. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  > instead of defend, it should be 'use'. unused patent just stifles innovation. you wanna keep it, use it.
  Congrats, you just completely squashed innovation by non-incumbents.
  Hey, you just invented a new refining technique!
  You bring it to existing oil companies and offer to licence it to them.
  They ask you if you are "using" it right now.
  "Well," you say, "it works perfectly in the lab, and there will be no issues in scaling it."
  "Yes," they say, "but are you using it in production?"
  "No," you respond, "of course not. I dont have a billion dollars (literally) to build a refinery."
  "Thats great," they exclaim! "We dont have to pay you then because your patent is not in use, and is therefore invalid. YOU'RE A PATENT TROLL! We'll be taking your invention and using it without paying you a cent. Have a nice day, and thanks for the cost savings!"
28. Re: Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  Just go read the patents. Most are "method of using ip packets to transfer data".
  Comparing this to inventions is pig disgusting.
29. Re:Require that patents be defended by Kartu · 2016-02-04 01:51 · Score: 2
  
  If your expertise isn't running a manufacturing company and you are developing software (as I am) you don't need patents either.
  In fact, patent shit is an obstacle for me, with legal department going on "OMG open source, PATENT ALARM" every now and then.
  (they do have a point, when you buy commercial stuff, if it infridges, it's seller's problem, kind of "troll protection")
  Let me put it this way: there is NO "multi million investment" into actual software that benefits from software patents.
  Most of US hardware patents are not valid in EU, yet no bad impact noticed so far, on the contrary, no "troll took on company X" stories in Europe.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
30. Re:Require that patents be defended by MobyDisk · 2016-02-04 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Trade secret was not replaced by patent. They serve similar but purposes but have different trade-offs. If you talk to a IP attorney, they will tell you that most inventions and discoveries are kept as trade secrets.
31. Re:Require that patents be defended by Kartu · 2016-02-04 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Still, "Patents were created to benefit the public, not the inventor.":
  
  Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
  No word on "let's let inventor become really really rich".
32. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  No word on "let's let inventor become really really rich".
  Wow, obviously you only read the part of the quote that you bolded. Allow me to remedy that:
  
  ... by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
  Exclusive Right means they can do whatever they want with it. This includes becoming really really rich, declaring it public domain, or not using it at all. That's what the word EXCLUSIVE means.
33. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  Ironically, Newton systematically destroyed Leibnitz's life. He claimed that Leibnitz had plagiarized Calculus from him. Leibnitz died in disgrace, shunned by everyone, and for 50 years was buried in an unmarked grave. Now THAT's a successful troll.
34. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but this idea makes no sense. If a patent holder was able to make money directly on their idea, they would do so. If they were able to license it to someone who was able to make money directly on their idea, they would do so.
  Possible scenarios:
  a) Apple attempted to license the patent, and could not negotiate a deal (perhaps due to price, etc.).
  b) Apple was ignorant of the patents existence.
  c) Apple didn't think they infringed on the patent.
  d) Apple knew they were infringing and didn't care.
  In all of these cases except b), the only resolution is through a lawsuit. In the case of b), VirnetX could contact Apple and demand a royalty, with the consequences of refusal being, you guessed it, a lawsuit.
  Also, I love how your solution is to force patent holders to do EXACTLY what VirnetX did, which is defend the patent. By your own criteria, these guys had a legitimate patent because they were able to find legal representation to help defend it, not just once, but multiple times, against the largest companies in the world.
35. Re:Require that patents be defended by Dragonslicer · 2016-02-04 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's all mathematics, and math should NOT be patented.
  Machines are all atoms, and you can't patent atoms. Does that mean that no machines should be patented?
36. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  What does "use it" mean to you? Does it include licensing it to other people to use, or only using it yourself? In the former, what if companies refuse to pay you a license fee, because either they think they aren't infringing or they know they're infringing and don't care? In the latter, what if larger companies simply steal your idea while you're trying to "use it"?
  In all of these cases, the only way to resolve the situation is through a lawsuit. Your idea solves absolutely nothing, except maybe some bizarre scenario where someone patents something but refuses to market it themselves OR offer licenses to other people. Maybe their idea isn't marketable, but then who cares about it. Or maybe it is and they have an aversion to getting rich, but also don't want others to profit from their idea. Then what do they do, file a lawsuit and ask for 0 damages? Who is this person, for real?
37. Re:Require that patents be defended by turbidostato · 2016-02-04 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  "you spend your time coming up with good ideas that someone else can use to do so, why should you work for free?"
  Don't work for free. Just work for whatever you arranged in a contract.
  "Are you saying working with your hands/mouth is more valuable than working with your mind?"
  No. I'm saying that unless you agreed in contract a compensation for your hard work, nobody owes you nothing for your hard work.
38. Re:Require that patents be defended by sycodon · 2016-02-04 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Intellectual Property should be a two part concept. The idea, and the implementation of that idea in a commercial product.
  Used to be for a mechanical patent, you had to build a working model. Why should people be able to dream up stuff that they can't possibly do, only to profit when someone actually does it and commercializes it?
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
39. Re:Require that patents be defended by danaris · 2016-02-04 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  The problem (or, if you prefer, great part) with this line of reasoning is that if you follow it to its logical conclusion, it strongly suggests that what you would need to submit as a "software patent" is, in fact, the source code, at least for the portion of the program that you wish to patent.
  Of course, we already have intellectual property protection for source code: copyright. So should there be software patents at all? Or should software patents replace copyrightable source code? Or should there be some kind of hybrid system, where you can have your source code patented, or copyrighted, but not both...?
  Dan Aris
  
  --
  Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
40. Re: Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Yes
41. Re: Require that patents be defended by 8086 · 2016-02-04 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  Then you just write it in fancy sounding bullshit, and pass it off as a unique invention -- and the morons at the patent office, whose only real criteria is if the checks clear, will rubber stamp it and suddenly you have a patent.
  To a great degree this is actually true. The patent officers don't care about the checks that much, though. It just creates a lot of work for them when they reject a patent claim and the lawyers of the people applying for the patent, i.e. prosecuting (that's the technical term) it prove them wrong and get their rejections overturned. It also shows badly on the record of the patent officer if their rejections tend to not hold up. The lawyers usually have more resources and motivation to make the patent pass through. So, the patent clerks tend to take the path of least resistance, i.e. approving the patents after doing their due diligence. Patent officers have a pre defined set of databases(including scientific journals, previous patents, etc) that they look through for prior art, and they don't look outside of that set (for example on Google) to find out if an idea is original. There is a fair amount of screening that goes into granting a patent for sure, and they don't just stamp anything. But they will stamp anything as long as their asses are covered. And they are really tiny asses that don't need a whole lot of cover.
  Now when you bring up a case in court to invalidate somebody else's patent, that's when your lawyers will do all the google searches and thorough research to show that the invention was publicly known before the patent was granted. This research would go in front of a judge who will most likely rule in favor of whoever hired the bigger guns.
  The problem with ideas in software (as opposed to, say, chemistry) is that they are generated far too quickly and anonymously to be included in formal databases and journals, even though they may be publicly known. I'll give you a rough example. Around the year 1998, you could use a plugin in Winamp called Geiss that showed trippy visualizations of music. Before that plugin (correct me if I'm wrong), music visualization was mostly just fancy waveforms. Apple lifted this idea wholesale and made it part of iTunes in 2001. Sony patented this idea in 2009. Poor Mr. Geiss got diddly squat for his invention, even though millions or even billions have probably used it till date, and his idea got patented more than a decade after conception. Such is the state of affairs: big tech companies go out and patent ideas that they learn from the general public. If the idea's implementation takes off, the patent provides them security, and if it doesn't, it's a bargaining chip to gouge money from anyone that tries to use the idea.
  Regarding the patenting of ideas versus inventions, in theory you can only patent inventions, but the definition of what constitutes an invention is very lax, especially for software, and you don't have to go and show a working proof of concept to a patent officer. If the patent application describes the software in enough detail so as to allow an average programmer to develop it based on just the description, it's good enough to qualify. In other words, you can pretty much patent a piece of software at the requirements and architecture stage.
42. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  The concept of intellectual property is just a sick idea of the lawyer class to tap the wealth of innovation... at the cost of others.
  Yeah, you are right. It was much better when the rich could just take the ideas from other and become much richer that way. Evil to make them pay for it.
43. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  they do have a point, when you buy commercial stuff, if it infridges, it's seller's problem
  Did you double-check the EULA and find the patent infringement indemnification clause? If it's not there, when you get sued the seller is likely just going to tell you to stop infringing the patent and leave you up shit creek.
44. Re:Require that patents be defended by mwvdlee · 2016-02-04 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  You confuse "purpose" with "trade-off".
  "Becoming really really rich" is a possible side-effect of the "exclusive rights" trade-off to let the general public use those inventions after the "limited times" has expired.
  All the original patent rules support this idea; inventions should be well-described (so they will be easy to copy); inventions should be special enough that the general public would NEED access to the documentation in order to reproduce it; the invention should be an invention, not merely a discovery of what has always been there; the protection should be a limited time, so the general public has access to the invention while it still has a use for it; etc. Of course, all of these has been eroded to the point of being unrecognizable and useless to the intended purpose of patents.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
45. Re:Require that patents be defended by tlhIngan · 2016-02-04 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, IP needs to realize that software is special.
  There are three traditional domains of IP. You have trademarks, which are protections used in the conduct of trade, copyrights used to protect creative works (used by humans and enjoyed by humans) and patents, of which you have utility (things used to make other things) and design (things with a decorative touch).
  Software is none of these - it is both a creative work - done and enjoyed by humans, as well as thing used to make other things. This means it fits poorly with copyright and patent laws, which means it really should be its own category of protections with its own time limits.
46. Re: Require that patents be defended by Type44Q · 2016-02-04 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  That devalues the concept of an idea and intellectual property on the whole.
  Well, not by much but I suppose it's a start. ;)
47. Re:Require that patents be defended by TangoMargarine · 2016-02-04 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Reading comprehension problems...
  
  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
  
  is the objective;
  
  by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
  is the means by which they hope to achieve it.
  No, it's not a trade-off.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
48. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  What about all those people who parallel invent stuff and actually make a product out of it, they are not allowed to profit from their idea?
  I read somewhere that even within the patent system it seems that most patents have a duplicate from someone inventing the same thing at the same time.
49. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  You seem quite dense. The "objective" is the purpose. The "means" is not the objective.
  Nobody said the means wasn't being done - just that the reason for it is something other than that. Get it? It's like "I drive to work so I may make money." My purpose is to make money, not to drive to work.
50. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  So you think the problem is that there are people with patents that see that companies are infringing their patents and are just choosing not to ask for licensing fees? How would requiring them to defend their patents change things? If I had a patent, and I didn't feel like enforcing it against someone then I would grant them a license for like $1 or something. Do you think patent trolls wouldn't be smart enough to figure this out?
51. Re:Require that patents be defended by TangoMargarine · 2016-02-04 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  You seem quite dense. The "objective" is the purpose. The "means" is not the objective.
  Yes, I'm aware of what all those words mean, and that's how I was using them.
  I think my point was that it's ("we do <means> to achieve <objective>"), not the other way around. The objective of the system is to promote science and arts, not make people rich.
  And the problem isn't that we're not doing the means, it's that we're doing it too much--too much protection such that it never *stops* being protected, which kills the whole objective to which lip service is being paid.
  I've read this over so many times I'm not sure whether we're arguing anymore.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
52. Re:Require that patents be defended by TangoMargarine · 2016-02-04 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably the reasoning is that without protection and being given directly the ability to profit off their inventions,* inventors wouldn't bother inventing?
  * in theory. cf. large corp "patenting around you" for all possible applications, waiting for it to expire, then doing it themselves, while being protected by team of expensive lawyers
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
53. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  "Are you saying working with your hands/mouth is more valuable than working with your mind?"
  Are you fucking kidding? Do you see the quality of these patents that are used to extort society?
  The main reason we have a problem with patents is that patents are granted at the drop of a hat over the stupidest of obvious, trivial bullshit. The people supposedly "working with their minds" as you so put it really aren't doing fuck all but then turning around and suing people that are working with their hands/mouth implementing ideas people had LONG before someone patented it.
54. Re:Require that patents be defended by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-04 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Trade secrets still exist, but in general they were - and still are - a staple of an artisanal world, not industry.
55. Re:Require that patents be defended by Jack+Griffin · 2016-02-04 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  That devalues the concept of an idea and intellectual property on the whole.
  Does it? the whole idea of "Intellectual Property" is to give the creator time to develop, market and possibly profit from new ideas. If you aren't using it then it defeats the purpose of the protection, since all you are doing is stopping others from developing similar new ideas.
  Use it or lose it seems like fair approach.
56. Re:Require that patents be defended by Tom · 2016-02-04 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  The problem (or, if you prefer, great part) with this line of reasoning is that if you follow it to its logical conclusion, it strongly suggests that what you would need to submit as a "software patent" is, in fact, the source code, at least for the portion of the program that you wish to patent.
  Correct.
  Wasn't it that to get a patent you had to submit a working prototype or model? The same should be required for software.
  
  Of course, we already have intellectual property protection for source code: copyright. So should there be software patents at all? Or should software patents replace copyrightable source code? Or should there be some kind of hybrid system, where you can have your source code patented, or copyrighted, but not both...?
  I don't care, really. But if you claim the protection of two completely different laws with different time periods, intentions and consequences for the same thing, then there's something wrong.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
57. Re:Require that patents be defended by Tom · 2016-02-04 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  Similar solution, yes. See my comment above - a working model should be included in any patent application. And I can take your model and use it if I pay you, or I can invent my own without paying you. That was the whole idea of the patent system, wasn't it?
  Software patents make the "I can invent my own" impossible. And that is where they went wrong.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
58. Re:Require that patents be defended by MobyDisk · 2016-02-05 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's not true. Go talk to a patent attorney who works in "industry" as you call it. I work for a Fortune 500 and I can tell you it is 99% trade secrets. Most things aren't worth patenting.
59. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-05 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Is https://virnetx.com/ working for you guys? odd, looks down to me.
60. Re:Require that patents be defended by doccus · 2016-02-05 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  instead of defend, it should be 'use'. unused patent just stifles innovation. you wanna keep it, use it.
  Some patents really SHOULDN'T be used . I.E. " New advancement for inceased nuclear kill ratio - ten cities attacked at once. (Patent pending)"...
  I think defending this is quite suffficient, thank you ;-)
61. Re:Require that patents be defended by doccus · 2016-02-05 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  ....I read somewhere that even within the patent system it seems that most patents have a duplicate from someone inventing the same thing at the same time.
  Hundredth monkey patents. Yeah it's a problem...
62. Re:Require that patents be defended by ILongForDarkness · 2016-02-06 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  What about Samsung getting sued (I think it was successful) by Apple for designs that Android violates? Also: just because they can't successfully win a case against you doesn't mean they can't file then get you to settle rather than run up the expense of defending.
63. Re:Require that patents be defended by ILongForDarkness · 2016-02-06 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  I build a house without a contract. If you like my house and want it you have to pay me for it. Similarly if I know how to do something you don't and you want me to show you how I can demand payment for it. Patents are just a bank for your ideas. Rather than having everyone keep their ideas to themselves and have society take the risk that they'll get hit by a bus before they find someone willing to pay the amount they want (which no single buyer might be able to), or for something that needs it to come up they can make their idea public knowledge but still maintain the ability to profit from their idea. I don't see anything wrong with that. Otherwise all the smart people that come up with ideas have to spend the majority of their time marketing/finding buyers for their idea (or weeks teaching each company one at a time) rather than let lawyers find the patent and come to them for licensing.
  Patents, when granted to things that are non-obvious/prior art etc, can be a huge time saver freeing up the creatives to continue to innovate while at the same time removing the risk that ideas will die with the people that come up with them.
64. Re:Require that patents be defended by ILongForDarkness · 2016-02-06 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  A potential solution would be to require the patent holder to license the patent for a "reasonable" amount. Instead of having to fight in court to get a patent invalidated you could instead go to arbitration to settle on what "reasonable" is in your particular case. It sucks because yeah the first one to the patent office gets a reward but at least the others would still be able to use their parallel invention.
65. Re:Require that patents be defended by turbidostato · 2016-02-06 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  "I build a house without a contract. If you like my house and want it you have to pay me for it."
  *If* I want the house. Nobody owes you nothing just for having built the house.
  "Patents are just a bank for your ideas."
  Unluckily, no, it's not "just" a bank for your ideas. On one hand, no, patents never have been about ideas, but about implementations. On the other hand, somehow you have an upper hand even if I reach to the same implementation by myself.
  "Otherwise all the smart people that come up with ideas have to spend the majority of their time marketing/finding buyers"
  You see? just like any other company out there. "Oh! but I don't wanna spend my time marketing/finding buyers!". Well, that's what being salaried is about.
  "Patents, when granted to things that are non-obvious/prior art etc, can be a huge time saver freeing up the creatives to continue to innovate"
  Hirings, when granted to [engineers, beancounters, clerks...] can be a huge time saver freeing up the engineers, beancounters, clerks... to continue to go with their engineering, beancounting, clerking...
66. Re:Require that patents be defended by ILongForDarkness · 2016-02-07 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  If I have a patent you don't have to pay me. You just can't use my ideas without paying me: come up with your own.
  The patent holder only has the upper hand if they came up with the idea first. You/your employer could have saved yourself a bunch of time by looking for solution to your problem and licensing it from the patent holder rather than burn months re-inventing the wheel. The same thing happens with copyrights, trademarks etc. I can put fizzy water into a bottle too I just can't put it in a red and white can and call it Coke. I can write another brain dead song but it better not sound anything like Yellow Submarine or I'll get sued.
  Running an R & D shop and letting lawyers find and license your patents is the equivalent of being an outsourcing shop that does nothing but payroll, or recruiting. There are firms that do the R & D on contract (ex. food scientists that will find ways to make your Twinkie's stay fresh for another 10 yrs or be cheaper to make etc). Patent holding companies are the same just doing it in reverse: they in theory, are solving or finding solutions to problems and consolidating them. Those with problems that those patents can solve come to them and buy the right to use the solution saving them all the delays of doing the R & D themselves or waiting for some outsourced research lab to do it for them.
The FLOODGATES have OPENED! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 21:26 · Score: 0

Saidith the Lord! Apple! Must! Die!
i love my stuffed qbert doll by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 21:27 · Score: 0

he never asks,
he never demands,
he never judges,
he just gives.
East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by tetraverse · 2016-02-03 21:43 · Score: 5, Informative

'East Texas is known for its Piney Woods, Caddo Lake, maybe for sweet potatoes. It’s also the patent lawsuit capitol of the country. More patent infringement cases are brought to Eastern District courts than anywhere else. There’s pressure to root out the so-called “patent trolls”.' ref
1. Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by TheDarkMaster · 2016-02-03 22:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  We can nuke East Texas?
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
2. Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  They have proven gas and oil reserves, so that's reason enough to start bombing them. You might be able to get a patent troll drone program running by arguing that they are an imminent risk to national security.
3. Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, they patented the idea of nuking East Texas too.
4. Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by TheDarkMaster · 2016-02-04 00:50 · Score: 2
  
  Okay, serious now. Why this particular district is so popular for patent trolls? Easy to bought corrupt judges? Or too stupid judge to realize the malicious intent of the troll? Both?
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
5. Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by seven+of+five · 2016-02-04 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  There’s pressure to root out the so-called “patent trolls”
  
  But apparently not enough pressure.
6. Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by gander666 · 2016-02-04 02:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  Okay, serious now. Why this particular district is so popular for patent trolls? Easy to bought corrupt judges? Or too stupid judge to realize the malicious intent of the troll? Both?
  I can answer this, having been through the wringer wrought by a patent troll.
  
  It has the appropriate US district court presence. This is pretty important, as patent infringement cases are brought to a US district court.
  It is an area that has a mediocre pool of jurors. Not highly educated, not too ignorant, but enough to be dangerous.
  It is really really hard to get to. You fly into College Station and drive hours east, or into Louisiana and drive hours west. Yes, this is part of the patent troll modus operandi. Make it super inconvenient for the players to get to. Look it up in google maps, and see.
  Back to the jurors, the pool is made of people who are at the bottom of the middle class or close to poverty. They view big companies as deceitful, and the bad guys. The patent trolls' lawyers play on this David vs. Goliath, and the jurors love having the power to put the hurt on.
  Almost all the major patent toll companies have a small presence in the county, so as to be able to file and force the suit to go through Marshall Texas.
  The 12 hours I was deposed was probably the worst 12 hours of my life, and the 30 days of rigorous prep I had to do beforehand was just awful.
  --
  Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
7. Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Um...if you're flying into College Station to get to Marshall you're doing it wrong. Try flying into DFW next time (direct route) or Shreveport (closer).
8. Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by Mr.+Shotgun · 2016-02-04 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well it is the only way to be sure.
  
  --
  Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
9. Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by radarskiy · 2016-02-05 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  If the district is chosen based on patent trolls' desires, you would think they would pick the district where they prevail the most often.
Re:Karma by GuB-42 · 2016-02-03 22:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Do you love patent trolls or do you just want to hurt Apple so much?
Like it or not, Apple actually makes good products, maybe they are overpriced, maybe they don't fit your expectations but there is no denying they have some technical merit. And while I would like them to lose against another innovative company or for consumer rights there is no way I want them to lose against a company whose whole purpose is to exploit the patent system for personal profit without contributing anything meaningful.
Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 22:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

You seem to have forgotton about the "rounded corners" thing. This is one patent troll fighting another, for the benefit of the lawyers of both sides. There are no good guys here.
"trolls" got teeth by mSparks43 · 2016-02-03 22:34 · Score: 1

Calling someone a troll just because you want to steal their IP seams to be all the rage these days....
1. Re:"trolls" got teeth by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  Says the troll.
2. Re:"trolls" got teeth by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  "seams"... LOL
3. Re:"trolls" got teeth by mSparks43 · 2016-02-04 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  I run all my IP under "trade secret" status. much better since you don't have to disclose any of the details of how you do things.
  Also don't do any business in the US "because* of their stupid software patent laws (the market may be large, but the return on investment is too low to bother putting any effort in there)
  But that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft Apple Google and IBM "intentional infringe" prolifically on the vast majority of their products.
  Which is one of the reasons I would never want them to know how we turn over as much as we do.
4. Re:"trolls" got teeth by SvnLyrBrto · 2016-02-04 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  But do you actually produce and ship a product? That's exactly what these east Texas clowns do NOT do. They just sit around spamming the USPTO with any random idea that they think of in the hopes that someone somewhere else has the same idea, but actually uses it, so that they can sue. It's one thing if you were actually using that patent, then $bigevilcorporation comes along, copies said product, and puts you out of business. But that's not what happens in east Texas. It's just a lawsuit factory.
  If this legal climate had been around a couple generations ago, we wouldn't have put men on the moon until the late '80s. Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke would have owned so many patents that NASA wouldn't have been able to function.
  Or, to put it succinctly: "Real artists ship."
  
  --
  Imagine all the people...
5. Re:"trolls" got teeth by mSparks43 · 2016-02-04 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  We deliver high value services to high value products. Services only my companies can provide because only my companies have access to the underlying tech.
  These companies have a product - which they paid for - the exclusive rights to use a specific invention, which they licence to companies rather than the original inventor being the only one who has the rights to use it.
  That isn't trolling, its profiting from the IP system the US built for itself.
  R&D in software isn't as expensive as R&D in hardware, but it still costs money.
  You might as well call the RIAA "music trolls", or the MPAA "movie trolls".
  I don't see why big business should be let off paying.
Greed. The oldest profession by geekmux · 2016-02-03 22:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

Only in America can "Patent Troll" become a legal multi-billion dollar industry, and yet prostitution remains illegal.
How ironic, since both are in the business of fucking people.
1. Re: Greed. The oldest profession by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  Too true,
  Fucking is legal,
  Selling is legal,
  Why isn't selling fucking legal?
America 101 by theprophetof+sarcasm · 2016-02-03 23:04 · Score: 2

Isn't this really just what America is all about? It's partly capitalism 101 and stealing from others. That's what America was built on, who are we to judge the methods of how one earns their living?
1. Re:America 101 by halivar · 2016-02-04 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  I think I missed the chapter in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" on software patents. I can't seem to find it.
2. Re:America 101 by theprophetof+sarcasm · 2016-02-04 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well I suggest that we get out quantum flux capacitor and make sure he includes that section.
trolls can come in all forms by ILongForDarkness · 2016-02-03 23:43 · Score: 1

I get the argument against the variety that sit on patents and wait for someone to infringe and then pounce. They wait till you have a huge proven market till they sue so that they can get the highest "license" fee possible. I could be wrong but it seems to me that people call anyone a troll that doesn't practice. I think that is plain silly. Do we complain about commodity traders that sit on millions of pork belly features but don't own a bacon factory?
For law changes: I think these companies that invest in patents should have to publicly post the list of patents that they hold and actively market them for licensing. If it is obvious someone holds a patent on the thing and it is easy to contact them and license (or re-engineer your product around it) then fine: if you infringe they can sue you to oblivion.
Apple, Cisco, Samsung et al might not have an excuse, bit I can see the problem for small startups to be able to afford to do a patent search before developing. Kind of painful if you have a huge expense up front before you can even start developing and getting a feedback loop to even validate the market opportunity.
1. Re:trolls can come in all forms by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-04 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Do we complain about commodity traders that sit on millions of pork belly features but don't own a bacon factory?"
  We would have a right to complain if commodity traders sat on millions of pounds of physical bacon. What they actually trade is the future right to buy or sell specified quantities of the product. That way, a farmer who breeds pigs can pre-sell pork at a known price months from now, insured against the uncertainty of the market now to then.
2. Re:trolls can come in all forms by Dragonslicer · 2016-02-04 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  They wait till you have a huge proven market till they sue so that they can get the highest "license" fee possible.
  In theory, that isn't allowed - look up the term laches. If somebody sued Google today for something like "a web-based email program that lets users tag messages", the judge would severely limit damages, since there's no reasonable excuse for the patent owner not to have known for years that Google was doing this.
Re: Greed. The oldest profession by geekmux · 2016-02-03 23:54 · Score: 1

Too true, Fucking is legal, Selling is legal, Why isn't selling fucking legal?
Nailed it. Literally.
Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 23:59 · Score: 0

I hate patent trolls as much as anyone, also in this case, but it is Apple you're talking about.
I don't remember them coming up with something really new, at least not often. What they always did was take something existing, ask themselves "how can we make this better", *and* usually do a darn good job of actually making it better.
Usually = I never found the iPhone good when regarded as just a device you make phone calls with. It's the added functionality that made it successful.
And that was the original, when they still had something you could call a battery life. After listening to my colleagues who have them, I wouldn't want a 6 or an Apple Watch for free.
My 2-year old Alcatel/Android has a decent processor and a 5" HD screen plus everything else those things need these days, dual SIM cards plus bluetooth plus WiFi on 24x7, yet it needs to see its charger only twice a week, and that should be enough.
Re: Greed. The oldest profession by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:21 · Score: 0

Better as Haiku: Fucking is legal / Selling is legal, but why / not Selling Fucking?
Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:50 · Score: 0, Interesting

See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. for details. Apple is a patent troll, and most of their "innovation" comes from purchasing other companies.
Crap patents. by sabbede · 2016-02-04 01:06 · Score: 2

There's nothing there! Just load balancing and some early attempt at DNSSEC. If they have a case against anyone (not that the patents are really valid), it's Microsoft for Active Directory - secure internal DNS with a portal to the internet. Except of course that those two patents specify the use of non-standard TLD's.
And somehow I doubt that facetime uses server names like facetime.apple.scom. Case should have been tossed on those grounds alone.
1. Re:Crap patents. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  So what? Apple, MS and Google do the same thing or buy companies that do. Microsoft get $5 for every single Android device sold that can take an SD card. Why? A few trivial lines of extra code to handle longer file names. $5 per device!
2. Re:Crap patents. by marsu_k · 2016-02-04 03:10 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You're right, there's nothing truly innovative like rounded corners, grid of icons of slide-to-unlock here.
3. Re:Crap patents. by LynnwoodRooster · 2016-02-04 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  I know this is /., but if you RTFS you'd see they won a case against MS for $200 million. I swear, people at /. are getting lazier and lazier...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
4. Re:Crap patents. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-05 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  There's nothing there! Just load balancing and some early attempt at DNSSEC.
  That's the huge problem with US patent system.
  The ideas in these four patents fail to meet the requirement of being novel and not obvious. Instead, they are obvious solutions to the problems the patents are purportedly designed to solve, such that many people in any randomly selected group of competent individuals would come up with if they were tasked to solve those problems.
  But the legal profession has far too much invested in the patent system, and far to much to gain, to acknowledge minor points like this. So they select a group of idiots for a jury, people that don't understand the issues, and treat the decision by the jury as if it were holy law, gospel, something handed down on the stone tablets on the mountain.
  None of the lawyers involved are willing to rock the boat, because they all know that the legal system is riddled with ethics problems that the legal profession benefits from, and none of them want to be the first to cast stones.
  If people know the patent office is issuing bogus patents, carefully disguised by their authors (and the lawyers that help to write them) as being legitimate, it creates an artificial demand for the services of lawyers to protect people from their own legal system.
  This case isn't about innovation, it's about unethical practice of law. Nobody dares to upset the apple cart, because too many people in the US legal profession have compromised their ethics in too many matters over too many years, and the whole system is now riddled with ethics problems.
  The US Patent Office is not competent to judge innovation (see the position paper done by the League for Programming Freedom for some of the reasons why this is true), and even if they were, they would be in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to doing so. The Patent Office, after all, is one of the few government agencies that actually turns a profit! We've all seen how government budget shortfalls directly impact government employees, on many occasions of the past decade.
  The legal profession is also incompetent at judging innovation, and is in a position of conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the law. There are a whole host of legal ethics problems associated with patent law in its current form, a point that has been discussed at length here so I won't repeat the logic that demonstrates this.
  It's not so much a question of the blind following the blind, but rather the unethical following the unethical.
  Worse, nobody with any sense can suppose that this nonsense is without harm to society. This is not victim-less unethical conduct. Everybody pays a price, and people doing creative work pay an especially high price. Worrying that one's own ideas will be stolen by a bogus patent is doubtless highly stressful, and we have known since the 1950's that long term stress has serious physiological consequences.
  The patent system is not quite as bad as the slavery system, but the lawyers are still making the same kinds of unethical decisions that allowed slavery to exist and even prosper for so long.
5. Re:Crap patents. by sabbede · 2016-02-08 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, I read it. I just forgot it between reading and posting. That was an absurd suit as well - as if the trolls have a patent on the idea of internal DNS. Ridiculous.
6. Re:Crap patents. by sabbede · 2016-02-08 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  HAH!
Re:Greed. The oldest profession by sabbede · 2016-02-04 01:10 · Score: 1

In prostitution, there's a transaction from which both parties benefit.
Re:Fuck VirnetX by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 01:30 · Score: 0

Might not work. They might actually like this ?
Fixing the utterly broken system is more important.
Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 02:03 · Score: 0

Apple is a patent troll. Are you in their employ, or just one of the hoard of blind followers who believe that Apple can do no wrong?
Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 02:52 · Score: 0

You sound like a shill. Go any look at Apple's BS "patents", and how their entire iThing UI is stolen from Sony prototypes and blueprints. Apple immediately threw away what they were working on and started over with documents they should not have had. These blueprints even made it into court vs Sansumg, which Apple's buddy judge ordered removed from all court records. Now who are the crooked ones?
Re:Fuck VirnetX by jsepeta · 2016-02-04 03:13 · Score: 2

Why can 't we encourage psychopaths like antiabortionists to engage in violent acts against patent trolls? Let them fear for their lives.

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
K-pop Apple please! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 04:01 · Score: 0

I hope Apple gets hit at least as severely as they hit Samsung! I was very disappointed at that time seeing how South Korea failed to cancel their F-35 JSF order in protest.
Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 04:02 · Score: 0

... a company whose whole purpose is to exploit the patent system for personal profit without contributing anything meaningful.
IF the patent is valid (you may disagree) and IF Apple did infringe upon it (you may disagree) THEN they did contribute something meaningful! If it wasn't meaningful or useful or profitable, Apple wouldn't be making any money off of it, which means there would be no damages.
And please, don't turn around and they "well they just bought someone else who patented the idea." When they bought the company, they bought the patent. When they bought the patent, they bought the rights to exclusive use under the law. Intellectual Property is just that, PROPERTY. If you buy a used car, can I just steal it from you, my defense being "hey, you just bought it from that other guy, it wasn't really yours."
Re:Karma by penguinoid · 2016-02-04 04:33 · Score: 1

Do you love patent trolls or do you just want to hurt Apple so much?
The only patent troll is the patent office, the one that gives official government right for all those other supposed "patent trolls" to actually take people to court. Without that, there would be no frivolous patent lawsuits.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Apple Will Enjoy To Pay This by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 04:38 · Score: 0

Apple will enjoy to pay this.
They support patent trolls.
They prefer to pay several millions than to go out of the business if the patent-free market is flooded with way cheaper Chinese products of comparable quality.
It's all part of the game of closing the market and destroying free competition.
Require a product by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 05:00 · Score: 0

Required all patents to result in a marketable product after a period of time. Also shorten the time of time for technological patents. Also require patents to be precise. A lot of patents are so vaguely worded that is is difficult to determine if you are infringing on them.
Re: Greed. The oldest profession by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-02-04 05:49 · Score: 1

Never got haiku as an art form. I always imagined it, like fucking prostitutes, was better in the original Japanese.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re: Greed. The oldest profession by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 05:53 · Score: 1

Shooting is legal
People are legal
Why isn't shooting people legal?
oops
Re:Fuck VirnetX by hondo77 · 2016-02-04 05:54 · Score: 1

Why can 't we encourage psychopaths...to engage in violent acts against patent trolls?
Professional courtesy.

--
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
They'd rather pay than play by WOOFYGOOFY · 2016-02-04 06:03 · Score: 2

The fact that M$ and Oracle and IBM and all the rest of the "victims" of "trolls" would rather pay the trolls than do what is intellectually ethcially and morally right- lobby Congress to ban software patents (and yes trolls, those ARE a definable thing) tells you something. They'd rather endure the billions lost to trolls than have to compete in the open marketplace, without their trivial patents. If they didn't have this barrier to entrance and the threat of crushing legal judgements, then they'd have to compete on the basis of the goodness of their product offerings.
Obviously, such a "disaster" is monetarily more frigthening to them than losing to billions to trolls.
It gives you some idea of the amount of market supression and concomitant loss of innovation the consumer is experiencing without ever knowing it.
Believe me, lot's of "agreements to be acquired" by small companies are in reality software-patent blackmail- you can sell us your comapny, or we can go to court.
It how they make sure that all innovation accrues to them, and they retain all real financial and political power in the world.
intellectual property is over-valued by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 06:17 · Score: 0

There is probably little to nothing that wouldn't have eventually been "invented" by someone else. We don't need patents or copyrights. Trademarks on mainly useful to stop consumer fraud and for stamps of approval to show x meets some groups standards.
Re: Greed. The oldest profession by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 07:07 · Score: 0

People isn't a verb, fucknuts
Idea Police by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 08:20 · Score: 0

If your work is to come up with good ideas, and other people think of the same ideas because they are obvious, then you deserve NO compensation.
If your work is to come up with good ideas, and you patent them in the broadest possible terms, then you deserve NO compensation.
If your work is to come up with good ideas, and you sell those ideas to groups of lawyers for the purpose of lawsuits, then you deserve NO compensation.
If your work is to come up with good ideas, and you use those ideas to stifle innovation, then you deserve NO compensation.
If your work is to come up with good ideas, and you never actually implement the working details of those ideas, then you deserve NO compensation.
If your work is to come up with good ideas, and there is prior art, then you deserve NO compensation.
If your work is to come up with good ideas, and they involve adding "on a computer" to an existing idea, then you deserve NO compensation.
If your work is to come up with good ideas, and the ideas involve algorithms that are reducible to math, then you deserve NO compensation.
If your work is to come up with good ideas, and they can be implemented with a generic PC and software, then you deserve NO compensation.
If your work is to come up with good ideas, and I also came up with the same idea independently, then you deserve NO compensation.
1. Re: Idea Police by douglas.w.goodall300 · 2016-02-05 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  What is your problem about if it can be implemented on a PC with software ?
2. Re: Idea Police by ILongForDarkness · 2016-02-06 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Short of the halting problem basically that means you deserve no compensation for anything that can be computed. Which means basically economics, accounting, banking, at least some forms of investing, lots of engineering, lots of science etc.
  Also Mr. Coward states the opposite of my contention with no reason and you never actually implement the working details of those ideas, then you deserve NO compensation." He basically says: if you are an engineer working for a company that builds stuff you should get paid. But if you are that same engineer working by yourself to design something then want to sell/license your invention to someone else you shouldn't get paid. Once again (at least as it is in the US) corporations are "super people" they can endow the same activity with value where it had none before. Apparently they are better than normal citizens too because they can give as much money to political candidates as they want (heck even if they limited it to the individual cap X (number of employees + number of investors) there might have been some argument for it, but unlimited while limiting individuals "free speech" to a fixed amount ...).
Parodies by malditaenvidia · 2016-02-05 05:25 · Score: 1

Maybe we should introduce the concept of parody laws into software and hardware. Like how MacOS is a hilarious parody of UNIX and so on.
They are by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-05 06:56 · Score: 0

All of the patents in the Apple case have been licensed and are being used by paying licensees. I hate patent trolls, but VernetX isn't one of them. They own legitimate patents on unique technology that were infringed by Apple.
Re: Greed. The oldest profession by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-06 08:59 · Score: 0

Shooting is legal
People are legal
Why isn't shooting people legal?
oops
It probably is ... in East Texas.