Apple Ordered To Pay $625M In FaceTime Patent Lawsuit

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A federal jury in Texas decided Apple must pay VirnetX Holding Corp. more than $625 million for using the patent licensing company's internet security technology without permission in FaceTime and iMessage. :eek:

VirnetX has been a thorn in Apple's side (and a good chunk of the tech industry) for the better part of this decade. It first sued Apple in 2010 over the alleged use of virtual private network (VPN) patents in FaceTime video chats, and has been successful enough in court to wring hundreds of millions of dollars out of the folks in Cupertino. And today, it's striking again: a court has ordered Apple to pay $625 million dollars for purportedly using VirnetX's security tech in both FaceTime and iMessage. That's actually more than the $532 million VirnetX had wanted, and a huge windfall for a company that has little business outside of lawsuits (aka a patent troll).
 
People can call the company patent trolls all they like, if the tables were turned you can bet Apple would be suing them into oblivion even if they made no money on their theft.

They own the patents, Apple used them without permission. Simple and clear cut. The small patent owners are not always monsters, no matter how jaded Big Tech has made you.
 
No patent should be valid unless you are actively selling it or using the technology for others. Private use or sitting on a patent to only make money in lawsuits, which only hurts innovation, should be denied rights in court. That would be like putting a patent on the idea of true hoverboards, then sitting on it for 30+ years and suing anyone who even thinks of bringing it to the population. Patent trolls irk me.
 
My question is does VimetX even license it's patents? In which case if it does offer a way for others to use them then shame on Apple for trying to be a bully and use them without paying. Now if Apple was using it, and then this company decides to buy up the patent for the sole purpose of suing Apple well then fuck those guys.
 
ShagnWagn said:
No patent should be valid unless you are actively selling it or using the technology for others. Private use or sitting on a patent to only make money in lawsuits, which only hurts innovation, should be denied rights in court. That would be like putting a patent on the idea of true hoverboards, then sitting on it for 30+ years and suing anyone who even thinks of bringing it to the population. Patent trolls irk me.
Click to expand...

Amen, we are fucking stifling innovation via our legal system.
 
Verge said:
Amen, we are fucking stifling innovation via our legal system.
Click to expand...

No question... But big companies have gone nuclear, so smaller ones are going guerrilla... What else was going to be the outcome.
 
Its sad that these days instead of creating standards, companies choose to sue each other over patents that should have been sent to the IEEE instead of the patent office.
 
sfsuphysics said:
My question is does VimetX even license it's patents? In which case if it does offer a way for others to use them then shame on Apple for trying to be a bully and use them without paying. Now if Apple was using it, and then this company decides to buy up the patent for the sole purpose of suing Apple well then fuck those guys.
Click to expand...

From what in read no. All of their money is made suing companies.
 
auntjemima said:
People can call the company patent trolls all they like, if the tables were turned you can bet Apple would be suing them into oblivion even if they made no money on their theft.

They own the patents, Apple used them without permission. Simple and clear cut. The small patent owners are not always monsters, no matter how jaded Big Tech has made you.
Click to expand...

Patent trolls are still patent trolls. No one benefits from Patent trolls except the trolls.
 
The whole purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation by providing limited exclusivity to the idea/research/product that you created/developed as a way to both recoup costs and make a profit to fund your next idea. Patents were never meant to be exclusive for all time nor to make money off of standards that everyone always uses, and definitely not for a company who didn't do a damn bit of work to make money off of it.
 
auntjemima said:
People can call the company patent trolls all they like, if the tables were turned you can bet Apple would be suing them into oblivion even if they made no money on their theft.
Click to expand...

That's true. That doesn't make it better, it really just makes it worse. The more of these I see, the worse I feel about the stupid systems we got.

I agree with the usage thing... though even that has issues. I mean, what if you come up with something, and you just can't get enough money to put it together yourself? TBH, there just isn't a real solution that can truly solve all this unless we reach Star Trek level of utopia.
 
Uvaman2 said:
No question... But big companies have gone nuclear, so smaller ones are going guerrilla... What else was going to be the outcome.
Click to expand...

These aren't companies that make things; they're essentially law firms.

Corporate vampires who do nothing but buy patents and sit on them in the hope that someone uses something that "infringes" on their incredibly vague patent language.

Most of these patents aren't even on original ideas: people are patenting crap that's been used for decades already and then turning around and suing the guys who created the stuff in the first place.

It's madness.
 
But how is this possible when Apple invented everything?
 
D-Wiz said:
and definitely not for a company who didn't do a damn bit of work to make money off of it.
Click to expand...
They did. They came up with the idea. Apple stole the idea. Without that company, Apple would not have created the technology as quickly as it did.

Just imagine if it were your idea that you patented, but didn't have the resources to develop it. It might take you time to start development or you might want to work with a larger company to license it.

The court decided there was enough proof to show that Apple stole the idea and profited from it. Little company be damned.
 
Change patent laws. IT patents should only last 1 year. After that, free reign.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
They did. They came up with the idea. Apple stole the idea. Without that company, Apple would not have created the technology as quickly as it did.
Click to expand...
Generally, it's more like this:

Company A: "Let's patent the concept of pushing video through a VPN tunnel."
Company B: "We need a secure video feed. How about putting it through a VPN tunnel?"
Company A: "OMG you stole my idea! Give me monies!"

As you can see, Company B did NOT steal the idea. It's an obvious solution, that they came up with on their own, because it's freaking obvious.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
They did. They came up with the idea. Apple stole the idea. Without that company, Apple would not have created the technology as quickly as it did.

Just imagine if it were your idea that you patented, but didn't have the resources to develop it. It might take you time to start development or you might want to work with a larger company to license it.

The court decided there was enough proof to show that Apple stole the idea and profited from it. Little company be damned.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. The company didn't come up with an idea. They didn't patent that idea. They are solely a patent troll. They just buy up patents for as cheap as they can get them, then sue others.

Just look at the 3 patents that Apple so called infringed. 2 of them are the exact same thing and those two are just them re-filing an old patent from SAIC back in 99. I don't know what the 3rd patent is, as when I look it up, it talks about a vehicle clutch. I thought it was a typo, so changed the last 3 digits to 181, which then comes up with a medical device to collect sleep activity data. So I don't know.

Also VirnetX is hardly a small company that can't afford to build upon their patents. Except, it's cheaper money to sue others. They make $100-200 mil a year already. Why go into a risky business venture like making actual products?
 
sleepeeg3 said:
They did. They came up with the idea. Apple stole the idea.
Click to expand...

No, just no. You shouldn't be able to patent an idea. You can patent an implementation of an idea, but not the idea itself. I could go and patent the concept of a time machine, and if anyone ever really creates one then I can sue them for billions. How stupid is that?

If Don Idiot, comes up with an idea in back ass nowhere, and decides to sit on it, then anyone who comes to the same conclusion elsewhere stole his idea? Of course not.

The system that allows patent trolling like this should be dismantled immediately.
 
M76 said:
No, just no. You shouldn't be able to patent an idea. You can patent an implementation of an idea, but not the idea itself. I could go and patent the concept of a time machine, and if anyone ever really creates one then I can sue them for billions. How stupid is that?

If Don Idiot, comes up with an idea in back ass nowhere, and decides to sit on it, then anyone who comes to the same conclusion elsewhere stole his idea? Of course not.

The system that allows patent trolling like this should be dismantled immediately.
Click to expand...

This ^^^^^^^^
 
The whole thing is ridiculous and has been going on for years now. Is there any end in sight to this theft?
 
M76 said:
No, just no. You shouldn't be able to patent an idea. You can patent an implementation of an idea, but not the idea itself. I could go and patent the concept of a time machine, and if anyone ever really creates one then I can sue them for billions. How stupid is that?
Click to expand...

Bad example.
If someone did come up with a time machine, they could simple go back in time and file a patent before you :)
 
M76 said:
No, just no. You shouldn't be able to patent an idea. You can patent an implementation of an idea, but not the idea itself.
Click to expand...

Patents are an exchange: You disclose to the public, and in return you get a temporary monopoly. You don't get a monopoly if you don't disclose a working invention to the public. Contrary to popular belief, you can't get a patent with nothing more than "wouldn't it be nice if..."

The important part of disclosure is the "how," not the "what." No one has a patent on time travel yet because no one has figured out how to travel through time yet. If you're the one who invents a way to travel through time, then why shouldn't you be able to patent that?

M76 said:
I could go and patent the concept of a time machine
Click to expand...

No you couldn't:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112
 
sleepeeg3 said:
They did. They came up with the idea. Apple stole the idea. Without that company, Apple would not have created the technology as quickly as it did.

Just imagine if it were your idea that you patented, but didn't have the resources to develop it. It might take you time to start development or you might want to work with a larger company to license it.

The court decided there was enough proof to show that Apple stole the idea and profited from it. Little company be damned.
Click to expand...

You can't say that for everything. Did you know there is a patent for downloading software and updates to your computer? So windows update, yum, and every other program that runs and downloads needed updates all are stealing that concept. Are you truly saying that nobody would have ever thought of updates had this one company not did it first? Kodak owns the patent for uploading and storing pictures on the internet.

It is one thing to own a patent on say a certain way to search for a file or phrase to get results faster and get better results vs having a patent for looking for files or words period. Just like there is a different between having a patent on using a certain way of transmitting data vs having the patent to transmit any data at all between two devices.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Patents are an exchange: You disclose to the public, and in return you get a temporary monopoly. You don't get a monopoly if you don't disclose a working invention to the public. Contrary to popular belief, you can't get a patent with nothing more than "wouldn't it be nice if..."

The important part of disclosure is the "how," not the "what." No one has a patent on time travel yet because no one has figured out how to travel through time yet. If you're the one who invents a way to travel through time, then why shouldn't you be able to patent that?


No you couldn't:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112
Click to expand...

That's cute that you think that is really how it works 100% of the time. Do you think a fat guy in a red suit brings you gifts once a year if you are good also. The law doesn't always work that way. Some times people are able to get patents approved for stir that shouldn't be allowed. And some times the patents are very vage and don't actually explain a single well thought out design but instead can be applied to many different areas. What you posted might be the idea behind how they should work. But in same cases that isn't the case.
 
To me, those patents are a how to do something.
Example, I patent this "How to make a call on a Cell Phone" pick up phone, either dial a number or use a stored contact, make call, then connected, you may speak to the other party.
So now I can sue anyone that makes/sells cell phones.
 
evilsofa said:
Update: the verdict has been vacated and a new trial will occur in September.
Click to expand...

schroeder said that the complex, consolidated trial, as well as repeated references to an earlier trial in which Apple was found to have infringed VirnetX patents, created "potential for juror confusion" and unfairly prejudiced Apple. The judge quoted a VirnetX attorney reciting an argument he viewed as potentially prejudicial.

"There was a trial in November of 2012 right here in this courthouse and right here in this courtroom," the VirnetX lawyer said. "And at trial Apple said those same remarks about not using the patent. And you know, the jury didn't believe them and agreed with us. And there was a verdict in late 2012, November, that [VOD] and FaceTime infringes."
Click to expand...

You've got to be shitting me.

potential confusion? unfair trial??

fuck you.

a plaintiff in a court case against samsung was on a jury when apple sued samsung and this isn't a fair trial.

someone check this assholes bank account for a substantial deposit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top