Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Troll VirnetX Wants To Ban FaceTime and iMessage, Increase Damages Award By $190M (9to5mac.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the more-more-more dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Earlier this year, patent troll VirnetX won a court battle with Apple to the tune of $625 million. Now, the company wants to increase the damages award by $190 million. Law360 reports: "At a post-trial hearing Wednesday, Texas technology company VirnetX argued that although an injunction blocking Apple's popular video chatting and messaging features, along with a virtual private network on demand feature, may seem like a harsh remedy, it is necessary because of the irreparable harm Apple's infringement caused the company. VirnetX also asked the court to increase the jury's damages award by at least $190 million, arguing that Apple has been the 'poster child' for unreasonable litigation tactics." VirnetX also wants the court to block FaceTime and iMessage entirely. "Meanwhile, Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features. The tech giant also sought a mistrial based on a purportedly inappropriate argument to the jury and argued that the company is entitled to a judgment of non infringement, despite the jury verdict, based on VirnetX's allegedly insufficient evidence," reports Law360.

94 comments

  1. Good Grief... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When are legitimate IP and patent holders going to band together and take out the courts in Texas? Sure, we all have different ideas about "Intellectual Property" and patents, but this has to stop. The courts in Texas are a money making enterprise that should be taken down with the RICO Act. It's a State of Texas sponsored SCAM. The "big players" like Apple and Microsoft (I know, I know...) need to "pony up" and kill this shit off.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with a business that just buys and licenses patents? Only mega corporations have the money to take a patent from idea to product. So the little guy that has a valid patent but has no business training, no capital to fund production or pay employees is SOL?

      If you have problems with software patents or the validity of the patent, that is a different issue.

    2. Re:Good Grief... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      So the little guy that has a valid patent but has no business training, no capital to fund production or pay employees is SOL?

      The patents were bought from SAIC, so that's not relevant to this case.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't say there is anything wrong with the business, you are right, but there is something wrong with what makes a valid patent a patent. We are at the point where an idea that isn't even innovating can demand 1 billion dollars in damages, just because they patented it first, even if there is prior art of some kind.

      What we should do instead is if you file a patent the government gives you money (different amounts if it is deemed important), if your patent isn't unique enough you don't get money. It encourages the government to make sure patents are valid so they keep more tax payer dollars, and it also allows information to be shared. And the most important thing, it allows the little guy to add to the advance of the human race, because lets face it, the little guy can't afford to patent it without selling their soul usually to some megacorp.

      I think it is good idea that requires more study. :)

    4. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because what the patent troll companies are doing is basically blackmailing the mega corporations. "Pay us protection money^W^W or else we will sue you for infringement." They have no plans to actually use the invention to make a product. This is contrary to the intent of patents, which is to provide the inventor the right to enjoy a temporary monopoly while ensuring the availability of the invention after the expiration of the patent.

    5. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if there was an unseverable right to the actual inventor(s) for 10% of any licensing, judgment, or sale of the patent? (Kind of like Germany)

    6. Re: Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not a state of Texas issue as virtually all of these cases are lodged in the Eastern District of Texas, a federal court, where the judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The trolls establish domicile in Texas so they can claim in this court, which is seen as friendlier to patent trolls. Not sure what you mean by taking out a court, especially when the issue is the patent legislation in the first place.

    7. Re:Good Grief... by vlad30 · · Score: 1
      Actually I think the patent office has a lot to answer to.

      1. They took money on the application and processing fee.

      2.They claimed this was for due diligence to make sure you have the right to the patent

      They should be included in the law suit

      Additionally why do patent trolls pick this part of Texas? is the system a part of the local economy

      As for the little guy who has no business training, no capital to fund production or pay employees something like an angel investor can be found be smart your first idea will fund your next idea you just have to sell part of your product

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    8. Re:Good Grief... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's a federal court, dumbass. The State of Texas has nothing to do with it and couldn't influence events if it tried.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm kind of favor of VirnetX on this one. They bought a legitimate patent fair and square. Apple's got a long history of taking other people's inventions and using them to portray themselves as innovators, and it's finally come back to bite them.

    10. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The patents were bought from SAIC, so that's not relevant to this case.

      To rephrase that for the unacquainted:

      The patents were bought from the DIA by a CIA patent troll front.

      SAIC is one of the top 10 defense contractors. You remember Q from James Bond? His American counterpart is an employee of SAIC. This is all about encryption and decentralized chat: who gets to use them, and who does not get to use them. You do not get to use them. If you think this is just about patent trolling, you don't know the players.

    11. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As time has progressed, I've started to ponder if any patent is really "legimate".

    12. Re:Good Grief... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      As time has progressed, I've started to ponder if any patent is really "legimate".

      I've got a few good ones. We build them all and they go into real products. I wouldn't describe any of them as obvious.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    13. Re:Good Grief... by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple's got a long history of buying legitimate patents and products fair and square.

      FTFY

      and using them to portray themselves as innovators

      Another Hateboi that needs to consult the dictionary on innovation and invention. They are different terms with different meanings - Apple didn't invent power cords that attach magnetically, but being the first company to put them on laptops was innovative.

    14. Re:Good Grief... by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      I honestly hadn't thought of that, but this is an awesome conspiracy theory. The government can't technically outlaw strong encryption, so they just send a patent troll front against any company that tries to do it instead. I would read that book.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    15. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we just nuke Texas, the court will dissapear aswell. Federal or not, it's still located in Texas.

    16. Re:Good Grief... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And if history is anything to go buy - there's a 90% chance at least 3 other people had those same ideas at the same time you did - they just didn't get patents, got there after you did, or didn't think they were as non-obvious as you think. Historically that's the case with just about any invention you can think off. Innovation is an unavoidable consequence of the state of human knowledge at any given time, once the knowledge exists for something to be invented, multiple people will independently have the same idea... every time.

      An example from my own career. Back in the early 2000s linux live CDs were quite popular for showing off the distro, they offered exceptional hardware detection and automatic configuration abilities. But Yggdrasil had been a live CD - the very first distro ever - so there was nothing new about the concept, it had just matured. On the other hand, installers were all still based entirely on package manager usage, and since CDs were so limited in space, you ended up where we were in 2005 - when the first version of Ubuntu shipped, it had two CDs in the package. One contained a live CD for testing, one was installable. The installer was text based and horribly slow and frequently failed to run well on a system where the live version had worked perfectly (simply because it lacked that awesome self-configuration capability).

      At this time I was working on an educational distro called OpenLab. One of the most popular live CD only distros (I've forgotten it's name, it was debian based and handed out at every conference at the time) had this huge long page of instructions you would need to follow to manually install it onto a hard drive instead and alter the config files so it could boot from there. I look at this... and realized that could be automated.

      So version 4 of OpenLab shipped as a live CD - with a program included which could automatically install it to hard drive, including graphical partitioning, mount point selection, boot loader setup etc. etc. etc.
      The first ever distro to ship with an installable live CD - and it broke records for the speed of install since the on-demand decompression was way faster than package managers. It still used a package manager AFTER installing. It was - in fact, the way every desktop distro is now installed - and with OL4 - I invented it (the main difference between today and then is that the installer was not launched from an icon on the desktop, to run it you logged out and and then logged in as root which fired up a dedicated installer environment - but in later versions I changed it to the icon on the desktop model without any code changes).

      Then about a month after OL4 was released, the latest version of PCLinuxOS came out... as an installable live CD. And they hadn't copied me, they had no idea I existed (after all - a niche-market distro from South Africa was not on their radar). Hell most of the people who reviewed OL4 didn't realize how radically different an approach to installation it was, they all assumed I had crammed packages into the CD as well which the root login installer did the old traditional way ! Hard to copy an idea when it was done so subtly that most people missed it.
      Thing is - the same lightbulb moment I had, that led to OL4 was also had by PCLOS devs, and quite possibly some others I don't know about. It wasn't long before every desktop distro was using the idea, some saw it from PLOS, some came up with their own code (quite possibly independently coming up with the idea), and at least a few used the OpenLab installer (it became the standard installer for just about any slackware based desktop distro for many years - the last one I know off was Blackwing64 which became obsolete when slackware got an official 64-bit version but there may very well be some of that original installer code still alive in some of the present day ones, nothing about the code made it hard to port so some may not even be slack-based).

      The point is - my greatest contribution to the open source and free software world...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the little guy SHOULD be SOL if he hasn't bothered to turn his idea into a real product that people can actually buy TODAY.

      Ideas are cheap, everyone has them Mr Snowflake. What's hard is actually bringing the idea into the world as a real product. That's what is actually valuable to society. If you want a patent, how about you make the idea, sell the widgets, pay your employees, and THEN we'll give you a patent. If you can't be bothered to make a business out of your idea (which shows that you're just a wanker dreaming that you have an idea), then why should you be allowed to stop someone else from actually making a similar idea work? They're the ones deserving the credit, not dreamers like you.

    18. Re: Good Grief... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you mean by taking out a court

      Nuke from orbit?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    19. Re:Good Grief... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Interesting

      SAIC are pretty scummy. They found out at one point that they were using some of our GPL'd software in a proprietary product. We said "yeah, mistakes happen, make a small payment (a few $K) to support an open-source initiative and we'll carve out a license exemption for your use case, no big deal". They then spent probably about ten times as much with lawyers arguing that their interpretation of the GPL meant they could go ahead and use it without open-sourcing anything and without needing a license exemption. In the end we just dropped the matter, it wasn't worth the hassle.

    20. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When are legitimate IP and patent holders going to band together and take out the courts in Texas?"

      Sorry, your legit patent holders are too busy doing the EXACT same thing against each other in the EXACT same courtrooms. As such crushing the trolls would mean explaining why they're doing the same shit against each other, over the same type of bullshit patents. And at best they'll lose their main weapon against their real competitors if they succeed.

    21. Re:Good Grief... by dwillden · · Score: 1

      It is in Texas but the courts in question are Federal Courts, not State courts. So Texas is not sponsoring any Scam. Why that circuit is so friendly to the trolls is a valid question. But it's not Texas that runs those courts.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    22. Re:Good Grief... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      There are cases where you fight companies in law courts and the others you fight them in the media, then again they may be so scummy that they don't get care how people view them?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    23. Re: Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patent trolls create cases in this Texas federal court for a reason. Not all federal courts are equal.

    24. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VirnetX seems to be the basis of the CIA "NetEraser" tool

      "VirnetX", netEraser, NetCloaker, "Gabriel Technologies" are some of the names involved in manipulating the SIP and/or RTP - in a very successful way!

      http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.29.01/cover/cia2-0113.html

    25. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't invent the idea. You should read Slashdot more often.

    26. Re:Good Grief... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Public perception of a company only works when they have an actual product to sell. With patent trolls, the products are the lawsuits, and lawyers don't give two shits about public perception in the media.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    27. Re:Good Grief... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      When are legitimate IP and patent holders going to band together and take out the courts in Texas?

      The answer to this is, unfortunately, "never". Lawyers make up the majority of state and federal legislatures. Lawyers and judges don't think the system is broken. In fact, they think it's working quite well, thank you. My best friend is a lawyer and he's taught me a lot about the law. One of the things he has also taught me is that lawyers don't think anything in the legal system is broken or needs fixing anywhere. Their response to literally every issue is to just sue over it.

    28. Re:Good Grief... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      They pick this particular court in Texas because the judges there have been shown to be more friendly towards the patent holder, regardless of if they hold a ridiculous patent or not. It's called venue shopping, and you better believe that every single company does it. Much like how there are shitloads of companies that are incorporated in Delaware, even though they probably don't have a single Delaware employee - corporate law in Delaware is far more friendly to the company than where they actually are.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    29. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When are legitimate IP and patent holders going to band together and take out the courts in Texas?

      There are no legitimate IP and patent holders, so your question is pointless.

    30. Re:Good Grief... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >there's a 90% chance at least 3 other people had those same ideas at the same time you did

      Nope. Not a chance.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    31. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we need the world's richest corporations to remake our laws! Surely this would *improve* things!

    32. Re:Good Grief... by _xeno_ · · Score: 0

      Yes. "Innovation." I hate those stupid "mag-safe" power adapters. All Apple succeeded in doing was inventing a power adapter that can't stay plugged in. The weight of the cord itself is enough to pull the stupid thing out if you let enough of it dangle.

      There's nothing like going into work and discovering that the laptop you left to charge overnight didn't charge at all because Apple likes "cool fancy" over practical power adapters.

      Of course, the theory is that you won't be able to dump the laptop on the floor by tripping over the cord, yet I've managed to do just that on multiple occasions. Sure, it snaps unplugged in the process but it puts more than enough force on the laptop to drag it to the floor.

      But that's Apple "innovation" - it sure seems neat, up until you try and use it in reality.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    33. Re:Good Grief... by Holi · · Score: 1

      " In the end we just dropped the matter, it wasn't worth the hassle."

      So in the end you decided weakening GPL was the easier course of action? Way to go.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    34. Re:Good Grief... by Holi · · Score: 1

      The problem is the PTO relies on the courts to weed out bad patents, and the courts just accept all patents as valid. No one is doing their jobs and that is what caused this mess.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    35. Re:Good Grief... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      It's one (sleazy) thing for a state like Delaware to decide to be a tax haven for corporations - and write their tax law to encourage corporations to 'locate' there.

      It's another thing for supposedly neutral judges in a jurisdiction to decide to interpret the law according to their personal beliefs - or to alter their personal beliefs - to generate legal traffic to their jurisdiction - if that's what you're saying is happening in East Texas.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    36. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      LOL. Either you are a troll or are balancing your laptop on a straw. I have had a number of Macs and never faced this issue inside the house, outside while traveling. It may happen once maybe on a slippery surface or if you leave it near the edge of a surface. To have it happen constantly means you might be deliberately trying to spout hate for Macs

    37. Re: Good Grief... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Spot on. I actually looked through the statistics back in 2013 or so after hearing so many people talk about the district. What I found was that aside from a one-year blip in the mid-2000s (which was entirely due to a particular judge who is no longer sitting), the Texas East District has never again been at the top spot of the rankings for federal districts that are friendliest to NPEs (non-practicing entities, i.e. patent trolls). As I recall, it was typically ranked #3 or #4 behind districts located in Florida, New York, and California, and usually ruled against NPEs at least 10% more of the time than those other districts. It was fairly close to the national average, in fact.

      The reason it gets so much attention is simply on account of the volume of cases it processes. As a result of that one-year blip, a lot of NPEs set up shop there, which naturally resulted in more cases landing there. Added onto that is the fact that its judges are now used to dealing with patent cases and their intricacies, so they push through far more every year than any other district, meaning that, simply as a matter of statistics, the number of cases that end up favoring NPEs outnumbers any other district, even though the percentage that favor NPEs is relatively close to the nationwide average.

    38. Re:Good Grief... by _xeno_ · · Score: 0

      Yes, I know, I'm holding it wrong.

      This is why I don't bother asking Apple users for help any more. The huge issues you run into with Apple products are never Apple's fault (why do I have to reboot at least once a day to keep wifi working?), they're always somehow your fault.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    39. Re: Good Grief... by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Uh it is the same issue. These unethical and evil trolls know the USPTO is understaffed and rubber stamps patents. They buy overbroad patents that should never have been issued and try to extort money. That's not ethical, sure as hell shouldn't be legal, and certainly doesn't advance the sciences. The US constitution states that the purpose and requirement of patent law is that it advances the sciences or arts.

    40. Re:Good Grief... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      why do I have to reboot at least once a day to keep wifi working?

      You must have an old router. ;)

    41. Re:Good Grief... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      SAIC wants you to know that they don't care how reasonable you think you are, or how right you are, if you screw with them, you have better know what the fuck you are doing. They do not even want to set the precedent that they could be anything but right about their use of whatever they are using.

      Aside from how evil that sounds, the sad truth is that if these companies show any weakness, they become a target. That is how litigation works in this day and age. Someone with more resources who smells blood in the water with SAIC caving to a smaller player is going to become tempted to try and find that weakness. This is very much a mutually assured destruction world with patents. These companies need you to know that even challenging them is not an option because they are afraid that someone could get very lucky against them.

      People think of big corporations like they are some sort of giant malevolent entity. The thing is, they're more like blind, idiot gods who if you interrupt the music that lulls them in their complacency, they annihilate you, purely by reflex. In that company, somewhere, is a lawyer who heard a story about another lawyer who let the company admit fault on something that cost the company money. That lawyer was obliterated. Now all of their lawyers will refuse any possible situation where they could get fired.

      As someone recently told me, the difference between big companies and small companies is that in small companies, people come to work to try and make things happen so they can make a profit and succeed. In big companies, they come in to work and do everything they can to avoid being fired. This is why it is ultimately futile to work with big companies unless you really have something they want or you have the resources to defeat them in a straight fight. They don't respond to anything else.

    42. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recommend a thermonuclear strike.

    43. Re:Good Grief... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The GPL works like any other license. It give someone a tool to work with, but it is only as good as who is operating it. No one gives a jackhammer to a toddler and suggests that the failure to break up concrete with it means that the jackhammer was the part of the process which was deficient.

    44. Re:Good Grief... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I think they are merely suggesting that the Texas venue just happens to have judges who favor patent holders. In theory, new appointments could change that, but as judges hold terms that can be as long as lifetime appointments, a court packed with patent-holder friendly judges could persist for decades.

      I don't think there is actually the assertion that the judges are paid off, although that's not impossible in some cases. If it happened in such a famous jurisdiction, though, you'd think it would have attracted attention by now.

    45. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need to be willing to sacrifice your life savings and your family's future in order to use the GPL, then no thank you, I'll find another license.

    46. Re:Good Grief... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Read the 4 patents, they're not much more than a description of the TOR router and standard internet components that were around in the 80s. I'd have to dig too deeply to dispute each one of those patents, but it seems obvious that they are broad generic idea patents without a shred of invention in them, giving the pre-existing and publicly available source code at the time. All 4 patents should be voided on the basis of pre-existing art.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    47. Re:Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how in fucks name is that a valid reason to anyone?

      seriously?

      and wtf does a router have to do with wifi?

  2. Go Ahead, Kill the iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe if enough people are inconvenienced by software patents there might finally be enough political capital to abolish them.

    1. Re:Go Ahead, Kill the iPhone by arbiter1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well Apple has used same dirty unhanded crap that was used against them in this case. Karma is a B****.

    2. Re:Go Ahead, Kill the iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Well Apple has used same dirty unhanded crap that was used against them in this case. Karma is a B****.

      Indeed. Their business model should be changed to something not dirty in the slightest, for which there is a great deal of demand: fellating nigger cocks.

    3. Re:Go Ahead, Kill the iPhone by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Name one patent Apple has sued over which they have never used in a product. Please refrain from breathing while you perform the search. Keep searching until you find one.

    4. Re:Go Ahead, Kill the iPhone by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Hmm yeah, Apple is always suing people over patents they hold and don't use in any products, and they venue shop for just the right judge in just the right Federal court.

      No wait, they sue over patents they hold that they are actively using in products they ship by the millions, where they show actual evidence of their competition using the patent in products that directly compete. And they file these lawsuits in the District Court for Northern California, which presides over Santa Clara County, where Apple is headquartered.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  3. IP trolling is huge business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect Microsoft paid then $23 million because it would give the company the appearance of substance, knowing the bigger targets of Apple and Samsung had a lot more to lose. I even suspect there is a deal whereby Microsoft recoups that money via a different route.

    https://www.virnetx.com/microsoft-and-virnetx-settle-patent-infringement-cases/

    "As part of the settlement, Microsoft takes a license to the VirnetX patents for Microsoft’s products and will make a one-time payment of $200 million to VirnetX. All other aspects of the settlement and license were not disclosed."

    If you recall the Android infringement lawsuits where deals have been done to return license money via discounts on products. To give the appearance of a license fee being paid.

    1. Re: IP trolling is huge business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Microsoft do this with SCO during the Linux challenge? They gave money to that organization as a way to encourage the trolling.

  4. This has been going on for a long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These patent trolls are a bane to life. They are *RIGHTLY* called trolls, because when you try to cross an open bridge, they come up out from hiding, and demand payment, just for being able to go forward. There is nothing that they offer. Now someone said "oh small companies blah blah". NO! These are not small startup companies working hard and inventing. They are teams of lawyers. They have paper that they managed to buy at a low price and sit on. When they find a target, they litigate. Do they do anything with the money? They live the high life! A team of 12 lawyers with a booty of $625 million means a cut of $52 million per lawyer, although the house takes a bigger cut of the take, so the average lawyers cut is about $40 million. It's like winning the super lottery. And clearly they have dollar signs in their eyes, but clearly the lawyers aren't happy with a measly $40 million, so they go back for more and shake the company down for another $190 million. They have no intention of "progressing the art". They have no intention of doing research. They have intentions of yachts, Boca Raton, Bermuda, and their grand children never having to work their entire lives. They are looking at trust funds. They want to retire at 35. They love the Porsche, the Bimmer, the Rolls. Hired help living in servants quarters. Fine wine and cheese, the South of France. And since a cut of $40 million might not cover all that, HIT THEM AGAIN! Greed and patent trolls know no bounds.

  5. frist 4sot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    our chances Have the energy Has brought upon OpenBSD. How many surprise to the Are almost

  6. Re:Good NIGGERS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    So the little guy that has a valid patent but has no business training, no capital to fund production or pay employees is SOL?

    The patents were bought from SAIC, so that's not relevant to this case.

    Yes I understand now. Just like niggers were originally brought from Africa!

  7. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Good. They're both useless and used by Apple to try and lock people into the iDevice ecosystem. Don't forget that once you've enabled iMessage on your iPhone, you can never stop using it and switch to Android because anyone still using an iDevice won't be able to text you any more.

    Which isn't to say that the patent troll should be rewarded, but forcing Apple to disable FaceTime and iMessage is only a good thing.

    1. Re:Good by jerk · · Score: 1

      100% false. I've switched my SIM between my iPhone 6 and my Galaxy S5 and have no problems sending text messages to/from the Android device. When I put the SIM back into the iPhone, iMessage is re-enabled.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You don't understand the issue. If you've enabled iMessage and someone with an iPhone tries to send you a text, it will get routed through iMessage instead. Your Android phone will never receive the text because the person using the iPhone will never send one. Instead it'll get routed to Apple's servers and your Android phone will have no way of seeing it. It has nothing to do with you trying to send texts, only people still on iDevices trying to send texts to you. In a just world, Apple would be forced to disable iMessage due to unfair market practices, but since that would involve a legal system designed to keep the market open, we'll have to make due with this patent suit.

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one who doesn't understand. iMessage registrations only last for a period of time before they renew. If you're not using an iPhone, after a while the registration auto-expires and none of the iphones will ever try to use iMessage to contact you again. You can also go to a website to instantly perform the same thing now, instead of waiting for the registration to expire. But please -- keep accusing other people of not understanding the issue. You don't either.

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want me to hunt down the Slashdot article on this?

      Bottom line is that Apple uses FaceTime and iMessage as a way to lock users into the iDevice ecosystem. Forcing them to shut it down and freeing their users to use open systems is only a good thing, even if original reason was due to a patent troll.

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage

      Go find whatever article you want you ignorant troll. There's the tool to do exactly what I said, and iMessage works exactly like I said it does. But please, keep on spinning your bullshit pretending like you know what you're talking about when you don't.

    6. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an actual problem. Last I heard, the registration lasts for two weeks.

      People who don't know any better will not know about this site - I'll bet the phone won't tell you without digging into the settings (who looks in there?). They'll in turn, assume that the alternate phone has a problem.

    7. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people know how to use a search engine.

    8. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, about the registration or how to unregister? Because the phone doesn't tell you at all.

      You need to know that you need to explicitly unhook your phone number from iMessage if you ever want to receive texts on a non-Apple device from Apple devices. For non-techies, pretty much the only way you'd know is from media coverage of this issue. The phone doesn't make that clear at all.

      And, yes, you CAN unhook your phone number via Settings. But the setting is "Send & Receive" and it doesn't make it clear that you receive iMessages to that number INSTEAD of texts.

    9. Re: Good by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

      The first Google-provided result shows how to do it if you still have your iPhone. The first search result is the god damn link the GP provided.

      I'm pretty sure people know how to use Google. This was an issue, YEARS ago, and has long been solved. Stop trolling.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    10. Re: Good by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      "pretty much the only way" excludes using Google for 20 seconds: https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

      Stop trolling.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    11. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you're cheating because you already know the solution. Here's the search people are actually going to run.

      Now the answer IS in the list of results. Eventually. But it's not the first result, and it's not what people are going to think of. They're going to assume their Android phone is broken, not that the sender's iPhone is broken.

      Apple should be forced to disable iMessage. If it takes this court case to do it, whatever. The greater good has been served.

    12. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those people though are usually smart enough to not have iDevices

    13. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an actual problem. Last I heard, the registration lasts for two weeks.

      Which doesn't matter, because the default behaviour is and was to use SMS if the message couldn't be send after a few minutes. Many people however disable that because they don't want to pay for a text message just because you are too skimpy and buy an Android (or no data plan) and are thus not worthy to be contacted.

  8. With a patent system like this... by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

    With a patent system like this, who needs terrorists to attack you?

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  9. Quick question by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    When are legitimate IP and patent holders going to band together and take out the courts in Texas?

    Apropos of nothing, how does one go about "taking out" a federal court?

    Just curious...

    1. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way big companies "take out" anything else they don't like, lobbying.
      I am sure that if they got annoyed enough and the main message every single lobbiest in DC working for a tech company had for the next year or so was "This court is a big problem", that something would be done about it. They just have to get pissed off enough to spend lobbying energy on it. A smaller company without lobbying power would be screwed, though.

    2. Re:Quick question by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      We are also curious and would love an answer.

      Sincerely,

      The FBI

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:Quick question by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Except that Federal judges are basically on a lifetime appointment. Unless you can convince the US House of Representatives to have full-blown impeachment hearings, followed by having the US Senate convict them, the judge stays until they retire or die.

      There's a theory argued that the 'Good Behavior' clause in Article III of the US Constitution may permit removal by way of a writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to impeachment; but it's never been tried and you would have to fight that one all the way to the United States Supreme Court, with every judge along the way possibly deciding their own future fate.

      Good luck with that.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  10. Damages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume VirnetX is a pure patent troll and doesn't produce anything.

    So, how can they be damaged if they don't produce anything?

    1. Re:Damages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too would like to see their calculations on "irreparable harm" harm caused. But if it's irreparable it can't be compensated! (Nelson) Haahaa. (/Nelson)

    2. Re:Damages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if they had been able to perfect their thing and have same userbase as apple... ...for an idea that is as old as tv.

    3. Re:Damages? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Well, unfortunately, we have another case of Microsoft putting the screws to everyone else by licensing this bullshit. Now VirnetX can show damages due to lost licensing revenue.

      I'm absolutely sure that wasn't a strategic move on Microsoft's part, either; they've absolutely never done anything like that in the past.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  11. WWDTD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would Donald Trump Do? It's a huge issue....

    I'm not sure i feel sorry for the corporate overlords getting reamed like this, i feel the same but just after a weeks worth of work. But... I'm sure the patent trolls go after the little guy just as well, so it would be nice if Uncle Berny and Trumy to shed their views on these matters.... lol.

    1. Re:WWDTD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would Donald Trump Do? It's a huge issue....

      Build a patent wall, and have the trolls pay for it.

    2. Re:WWDTD by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      What would Donald Trump Do? It's a huge issue....

      All it needs is a minor change to his policy ... the wall has to be North of Texas

  12. Good!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patent trolls are really a good thing:
    1) They level the playing field by going around the big players patent deals, where the small companies do not have chance.
    2) It demonstrates how bad the patent system is.

    Making patent trolls illegal would actually make the system worse, not improving it.

    1. Re: Good!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does. Perhaps they'll get the president to stop VirnetX's injunction. Samsung rightfully won that one... how can you even negotiate something when you have no power?

  13. Why can't courts punish both sides? by fey000 · · Score: 1

    Is there any outcome here where both parties get sent to jail? Cause that's the one I'm rooting for.

    1. Re:Why can't courts punish both sides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when they start suing your phone manufacturer of choice for the same thing, will you have the same opinion? Or all of a sudden will you be offering a full-throated defense of said company and saying how patent trolls must be dealt with?

      Fucking fandroid hater.

  14. And Replace it with what? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    They want to shut down Apple's services. Fine - but what competing products did Apple shutout of the market that will now be able to bounce back and increase market share?

    If they desire to take away something - what is the replacement? If this is an NPE - they have no product. So Apple pays the patent tax - is granted a license - and we all move on.

    1. Re:And Replace it with what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They don't want to replace it.

      VirnetX works for the intelligence community. They don't like Apple's end-to-end encryption because it makes life harder for them.

      Originally, this patent dispute arose over encryption and decentralization: iChat/FaceTime, like Skype. made direct connections between computers, which cut out the middleman relay server which also cut out an easy logging point. Microsoft bought Skype and immediately eliminated direct connections; Apple continued to make direct connections until VirnetX sued them under a patent about direct connections. Now FaceTime calls are routed through an Apple server, which means that they can be more easily logged... but Apple flipped the intelligence community the middle finger by encrypting all the calls and by encrypting iMessage (at least the iMessage messages that aren't SMS).

      VirnetX now wants to shut down FaceTime and iMessage in retaliation. They're essentially using patents as an excuse to get an injunction against Apple for encrypting chat by default. The only replacement VirentX and its masters might want would be unencrypted chat and easily logged communications.

      Interestingly, VirnetX has little market cap -- $265M. If they could, I'm sure Apple would love to buy the company and all its patents in a very hostile takeover. That will never be allowed to happen, because VirnetX is a tool for people who won't let that happen.

  15. I'm really glad because... by coofercat · · Score: 3, Funny

    My VirnetX phone has literally been useless since Apple put Facetime on their phones. I haven't had a single video call since that day. I was gonna switch to an Apple or maybe an Android, but now I'm sure VirnetX will re-start development of an upgrade phone and I'll be back on easy streets once again.

  16. Promoting Science and the Useful Arts by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

    Gee, thanks Constitution.

    Perhaps an idea about technology from 1789 no longer has value.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  17. What's the downside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Irreparable harm" was allegedly caused to a patent troll.

    I'm trying to think of a single way this is bad. Nope, I've got nothing. Irreparable harm to patent trolls should be one of the goals of our legislation, not enabling these leeches.

  18. Sounds good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Banning iMessage would be a great thing. It's a monopolistic technology which Apple refuses to open to third parties. You get people who might be smart enough to dump the iPhone refusing to do so because "all of their friends are on iMessage" (and are apparently too stupid to figure out SMS, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc etc).