Slashdot Mirror
Patent Troll VirnetX Awarded $626M In Damages From Apple (arstechnica.com)
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.
instead of defend, it should be 'use'. unused patent just stifles innovation. you wanna keep it, use it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.