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."

Comments

Re:Patent troll

[msauve]

"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.