Slashdot Mirror
Apple To Appeal Five-Year-Long Patent Battle After $439.7 Million Loss (theverge.com)
Appel has been ordered to pay $439.7 million to the patent-holding firm VirnetX for infringing on four patented technologies that were apparently used in FaceTime and other iOS apps. According to The Verge, Apple plans to appeal the ruling -- continuing this long-running patent battle, which began back in 2012. From the report: VirnetX first filed suit against Apple in 2010, winning $368 million just two years later. It then sued again in 2012, which is the suit that's being ruled on today. Apple initially lost the suit, then filed for a mistrial. It won a new trial, lost that trial, was ordered to pay around $300 million, then lost some more and is now having that amount upped even further. That's because a judge found Apple guilty of willful infringement, bumping its payment amount from $1.20 per infringing Apple device to $1.80 per device. Those include certain iPhones, iPads, and Macs. VirnetX says the ruling is "very reasonable." Apple didn't issue a statement other than to say that it plans to appeal. While $440 million isn't a lot of money for Apple, there's principle at stake here: VirnetX is a patent troll that makes its money from licensing patents and suing other parties. The company's SEC filing states, "Our portfolio of intellectual property is the foundation of our business model."
You know I worked for a small regional computer manufacturer in the late 90's and we actually had to spar with the company who was infamously going around filing lawsuits alleging infringement because we sold computers that had blinking cursors. They had a legitimate patent for that.
The problem is that everyone wants to argue the extremes and turn this into a binary problem when it is not. There are good and legitimate patents; there are some real suck-ass crap patents, and there is everything in between. Companies like Apple generally do not infringe on patents purposefully; they both pay for and receive tons of license fees under contracts that are overwhelmingly not the result of court cases. They aren't seeking to undermine the patent system or play a bunch of high stakes poker with patents. Software patents are too easy to work around.
"Indeed VirnetX would appear to be a patent troll"
No, absolutely not. Patent trolls don't go after multi-national corporations. They have weak or indefensible patents, and go after low-hanging fruit, trying to avoid court at all costs - they live on out-of-court settlements where the target figures paying is cheaper than fighting.
Now, they may be a NPE (non-practicing entity), which doesn't make products which use their patents, but that's another thing entirely. Lots of universities fall in that category - they don't make products, but license patents they developed with research. Nothing unethical about it, they developed or bought reasonable, enforceable patents. Say some Joe Blow patented something unique - he doesn't have the resources to fight an infringer like Apple, so he sells the patent to someone who does. The system works like it should, assuming you think patents should exist at all.
That the patent(s) in question here have held up across several cases shows they're not a patent troll.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Is someone trying to steal their rounded corners idea again?! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
From the article:
Currently all four VirnetX patents in the suit have been invalidated by the Patent and Trademark Office, or its Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or both. This, confusingly, doesn’t actually halt the pace of VirnetX’s patent case: the invalidation is not legally binding until all appeals have been exhausted (and separately that case appears to still be ongoing).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.