Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on 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.

14 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Require that patents be defended by spork+invasion · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 JaredOfEuropa · · 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...
    4. Re:Require that patents be defended by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:Require that patents be defended by Tom · · 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
    6. Re:Require that patents be defended by ILongForDarkness · · 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?

    7. Re:Require that patents be defended by mwvdlee · · 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?
    8. Re: Require that patents be defended by gstoddart · · 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.
  2. East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. by tetraverse · · 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 · · 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 gander666 · · 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
  3. Re:Karma by GuB-42 · · 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.

  4. Greed. The oldest profession by geekmux · · 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.