or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's FaceTime workarounds for VirnetX patent suit causing complaints, costs $2.4M per month
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's FaceTime workarounds for VirnetX patent suit causing complaints, costs $2.4M per month - Page 3

post #81 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Buying and sitting on patents just to extort should be stopped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirnetX

 

The same as buying stock and sitting on it or buying land to sell later, or owning gold because you think the value of the currency is going down some time later, or any investment you think will gain value over time? No, buying valid intellectual property and later collecting on licensing fees should not be wrong, and if someone infringed on those licenses they should have to pay. Perhaps Apple should be on the lookout more adamantly to purchase such licenses early.  

post #82 of 107

Market cap is just under $1 billion.    If the company has other valuable patents that Apple needs, Apple should buy 51% so they can control the company.  I assume they already offered something reasonable to VirnetX in terms of a licensing fee and they turned it down.   

 

Since I don't know the exact technology used, I haven't formed an opinion as to whether this should have been a valid patent or not.    But on standards that everyone needs to use, I don't think it's reasonable that a single holding company can bring down an industry, especially if what we're talking about is a communications or data format.

post #83 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

The same as buying stock and sitting on it or buying land to sell later, or owning gold because you think the value of the currency is going down some time later, or any investment you think will gain value over time? No, buying valid intellectual property and later collecting on licensing fees should not be wrong, and if someone infringed on those licenses they should have to pay. Perhaps Apple should be on the lookout more adamantly to purchase such licenses early.  

It's not quite the same thing.   If I sit on a physical asset, it doesn't really affect anyone else.   But vital patents affect entire industries and in many cases, the patent office granted patents when they should not have been granted.   Too many patents are being granted for ideas, not implementations of those ideas.   One example of that is that Amazon patented "one-click ordering" forcing Apple to pay a license fee to use it.  IMO, that's an obvious business functionality and never should have been patentable.    I've seen supposed patents over "storing user data" and the like.    All obvious and never should have been patentable.   

 

 

 

Quote:

Patent protection, however, cannot be obtained for inventions in this field that do not meet the current test for patentable subject matter and, in order to be patentable at all, a software program must meet the patent test of nonobviousness. In the 1970’s, case law in the patent field was showing dubiousness as to whether computer programs could constitute patentable inventions. Under the U.S. Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§101 et seq., patents may be granted for any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. ....

 

Over time, case law refined the contours of patentability. Patent protection has been denied, for example, for inventions in the form of certain algorithms and inventions relating to methods of doing business. See, e.g., the Freeman-Walter-Abele test for algorithms (In re Abele, 214 U.S.P.Q. 682 (CCPA 1982); In re Walter, 205 U.S.P.Q. 397 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 197 U.S.P.Q. 464 (CCPA 1978); and Arrythmia Research Technology Inc. v. Carazonix, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1033 (CFAC 1992)). In 1995, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a legal analysis in support of its view on the patentability of computer-related inventions generally following decisions such as In re Alappat (31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545 (CAFC 1994)) and In re Lowry (32 U.S.P.Q.2d 1031 (CAFC 1994)), which, taken together, overturned much of the USPTO’s prior policies.

 

According to the PTO’s new draft guidelines, one must first determine whether an invention is useful in the technological arts having a 'real world’ value and not a mere concept. Within this framework, methods of doing business should be treated like any other process. According to the USPTO, the only types of subject matter that are "clearly non-statutory" are: data structures or programs per se; compilations or arrangements of nonfunctional information or a known machine-readable storage medium encoded with such information; or natural phenomena, such as electricity and magnetism.

post #84 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

It's not quite the same thing.   If I sit on a physical asset, it doesn't really affect anyone else.   But vital patents affect entire industries and in many cases, the patent office granted patents when they should not have been granted.   Too many patents are being granted for ideas, not implementations of those ideas.   One example of that is that Amazon patented "one-click ordering" forcing Apple to pay a license fee to use it.  IMO, that's an obvious business functionality and never should have been patentable.    I've seen supposed patents over "storing user data" and the like.    All obvious and never should have been patentable.   

 

 

 

 

One-click may seem obvious now, but probably not when patented. Pinch to zoom seems very obvious to us now, but not before the iPhone. So the definition of obvious is determined by perspective of when you are seeing the patent or invention. Obvious would be scrolling, hyperlinks and basic operations of use, not easily functioned in another manner. 

 

You can zoom in many ways, Apple chose to define it as a pinch, which is not obvious nor is the only function to zoom images or text. One-click is one function to purchase goods, however, it is not the only one, and it was not obvious at first. 

 

I don't know the details of this patent or if there are other function to achieve the same goal, although it sounds as if there is not, and therefore can't speak to the obviousness of the idea. 

 

What gets me, is that people spend much time, and most times money, to get an idea functioning and I don't think it is right to then allow the world to own it collectively. Granted, vague ideas like "A means to move an object from one location to another by means of adam relocation" should not be a patent for teleportation. If, however, the patent originator outlined the function of the idea in enough detail that a clear path to conception was made, they should be granted the patent. Now I don't know about software, but physical patents need a working model before you can file for a permanent patent. Patent pending can have more the functional outline, where you then have a year to file for the permanent patent.

 

But just because the patent holder has so far been unable, or unwilling, to bring the concept to market does not remove the fact they hold the conceptual or functional property. The bigger question is did Apple knowingly infringe, which should have a harsher penalty. If not, reasonable, real market value should be assessed. 

post #85 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

You made the assertion so it lies to you to provide proof.

Or look at it this way:

Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.

Using your logic thus far, unless you're willing to provide proof that Jobs didn't kill Kennedy, then I can just keep stating that as fact. Yes that's incredibly stupid, but that's the logic you're using.

Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.
Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.
Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.

Oh, man. I just read on the Internet that Steve Jobs killed Kennedy. It must be true.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #86 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by twpoker View Post

I suggest you look up the employee roster of VirnetX and the list of named inventor's on the patent and then report how many of the named inventors work for VirnetX.  It probably wouldn't hurt if you took a look at the SAIC to VirnetX connection. The notion that an inventor who defends their own patent is a troll is absurd.  If you are willing to bridge the gap from inventor to investor in defining a troll, wouldn't it be smaller leap to label Apple a troll as they have purchased patents from third parties and are just sitting on thousands of them?  Which sounds closer to the actual definition of a patent troll.

You assume everybody listed on a patent is an inventor in the traditional sense. For instance, big companies, Apple included, have lawyers that go talk to designers and engineers and try to patent anything and everything under the sun knowing full well many of the patents will fall.

Inventors slash investors defending what is thought to be a valid patent is fine. My problem is with the approach. What makes Virnetx a troll is it hiding in the dark allowing companies to create successful products using the alleged patented methods before springing into action. This type of behavior kills innovation.

As far as Apple sitting on patents go, Apple largely uses patents defensively. The exception is of course with some Android manufacturers it feels jilted by and blatant copiers of design patents.

Moreover, Apple said publicly from the get go it would sue on its iPhone related patents. It was not hiding.
post #87 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

The same as buying stock and sitting on it or buying land to sell later, or owning gold because you think the value of the currency is going down some time later, or any investment you think will gain value over time? No, buying valid intellectual property and later collecting on licensing fees should not be wrong, and if someone infringed on those licenses they should have to pay. Perhaps Apple should be on the lookout more adamantly to purchase such licenses early.  

Yes, except the purpose of patents is to foster innovation for the public benefit. This is achieved by granting patent holders a limited monopoly to benefit from their creative endeavors. Patents were never intended to be used in a way that killed innovation.

Moreover, you act if it is possible for Apple or any other company to actually determine if an idea is patented. Apple could not have taken a license early as you suggest because patent attorneys write the patents in a way as to purposefully avoid detection. For instance, changing common language to avoid patent searches. The system should require patents to be drafted clearly and require patent holders to contact alleged infringers immediately.
post #88 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


You made the assertion so it lies to you to provide proof.

Or look at it this way:

Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.

Using your logic thus far, unless you're willing to provide proof that Jobs didn't kill Kennedy, then I can just keep stating that as fact. Yes that's incredibly stupid, but that's the logic you're using.

Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.
Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.
Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.

 

Notice how Tallesskill simply avoids the thread, considering he made an assertion that he can't back up... Typical.... 

post #89 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Yes, except the purpose of patents is to foster innovation for the public benefit. This is achieved by granting patent holders a limited monopoly to benefit from their creative endeavors. Patents were never intended to be used in a way that killed innovation.

Moreover, you act if it is possible for Apple or any other company to actually determine if an idea is patented. Apple could not have taken a license early as you suggest because patent attorneys write the patents in a way as to purposefully avoid detection. For instance, changing common language to avoid patent searches. The system should require patents to be drafted clearly and require patent holders to contact alleged infringers immediately.

 

 

Patents are to protect ideas, not foster innovation. I don't see how any of this 'kills' innovation if a patent holder requires, in private or by the court, payment for the right to use their patented property. 

 

Yes, a company can search as you pointed out. No, you would probably not search pinch to zoom, but enlarging, expanding, etc. There are companies that know this process very well. Again, I did not read the patent, but I'm sure it should have been found. Regardless, if it was there, and not found, and Apple can prove they looked, or prove it was not easily found, then Apple should not be held as attempting to defraud, but still owes reasonable value to the patent holder for use of said idea. 

post #90 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


Patents are to protect ideas, not foster innovation. I don't see how any of this 'kills' innovation if a patent holder requires, in private or by the court, payment for the right to use their patented property. 

Actually, the purpose of patents IS to foster innovation. The Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Clearly, the purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Yes, a company can search as you pointed out. No, you would probably not search pinch to zoom, but enlarging, expanding, etc. There are companies that know this process very well. Again, I did not read the patent, but I'm sure it should have been found. Regardless, if it was there, and not found, and Apple can prove they looked, or prove it was not easily found, then Apple should not be held as attempting to defraud, but still owes reasonable value to the patent holder for use of said idea. 

And that's largely the way it works. If someone is found to have infringed, they owe a payment. IF, and only if, the infringement is found to have been willful, there are additional penalties. The most common way for someone to prove willful infringement is to produce letter sent to the infringing company showing that the company was notified of the matter and continued to infringe. I'm not aware of "they SHOULD have known that it was patented" as a useful argument - every case I know of involves the inventor notifying the infringer in writing.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #91 of 107
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Notice how Tallesskill simply avoids the thread

 

Once again, please shut up. I fail to see how "avoiding" a thread can be claimed.

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156832/apples-patent-suit-loss-to-virnetx-forces-vpn-behavior-changes

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154205/virnetx-sues-apple-again-after-winning-368m-patent-trial-verdict

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-14/virnetx-loses-patent-trial-to-cisco-over-private-networks

 

I'm not holding your hand any further. If you actually cared about the truth, you would have read through these yourself.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #92 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, the purpose of patents IS to foster innovation. The Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Clearly, the purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
And that's largely the way it works. If someone is found to have infringed, they owe a payment. IF, and only if, the infringement is found to have been willful, there are additional penalties. The most common way for someone to prove willful infringement is to produce letter sent to the infringing company showing that the company was notified of the matter and continued to infringe. I'm not aware of "they SHOULD have known that it was patented" as a useful argument - every case I know of involves the inventor notifying the infringer in writing.

Not asking you specifically JR.
Aaron Burnett, who has an up and coming app called Smart Ride, got one of "those letters". What realistic option do you believe he has?
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/dotcommentary/article/Patent-trolls-put-brakes-on-S-F-transit-app-4778304.php?cmpid=gplus
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #93 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

It's not quite the same thing.   If I sit on a physical asset, it doesn't really affect anyone else.   But vital patents affect entire industries and in many cases, the patent office granted patents when they should not have been granted.   Too many patents are being granted for ideas, not implementations of those ideas.   One example of that is that Amazon patented "one-click ordering" forcing Apple to pay a license fee to use it.  IMO, that's an obvious business functionality and never should have been patentable.    I've seen supposed patents over "storing user data" and the like.    All obvious and never should have been patentable.   

 

 

 

You have so many errors in this statement, I don't know where to start....

First, this patent is clearly not an idea.  If it were, the court would have invalidated the patent by now.

Second, there are few if any similarities between Apple's current case and Amazon's one click patent.  

Third, you say Amazon's invention is obvious, but the patent office didn't think so, the courts don't think so, and I don't think so (and I have drafted and prosecuted hundreds of patents).  The problem isn't that Amazon's invention is obvious. The problem is the public doesn't have the proper training to determine obviousness.  It's a legal standard and it's difficult to apply. We shouldn't even be asking the public what they think is obvious.  Surgeons don't look to the public to tell them how to do brain surgery.  Try telling a surgeon you just cut the tissue with a scalpel (hint to surgeon...make sure the scalpel is sharp).  A surgeon would say, ya right, good luck with that.

I'm not saying that there aren't invalid patents out there. Of course there are.  However, if the patent has been litigated and a Federal court deemed it valid, you are a fool to think you know better. 

post #94 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Once again, please shut up. I fail to see how "avoiding" a thread can be claimed.

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156832/apples-patent-suit-loss-to-virnetx-forces-vpn-behavior-changes

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154205/virnetx-sues-apple-again-after-winning-368m-patent-trial-verdict

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-14/virnetx-loses-patent-trial-to-cisco-over-private-networks

 

I'm not holding your hand any further. If you actually cared about the truth, you would have read through these yourself.

You are still avoiding the thread.  Your links provide statements about Virnetx suing people.  sapporobabyrtrns said, "Care to back up that claim that Apple did nothing wrong with a set of facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.... "

Where's your response?

Let me help you out. If you or someone else has done the proper analysis, you might be able to argue the district court got it wrong, in which case Apple should appeal.  

However, the fact remains that you continue to avoid the thread. 

post #95 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Not asking you specifically JR.
Aaron Burnett, who has an up and coming app called Smart Ride, got one of "those letters". What realistic option do you believe he has?
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/dotcommentary/article/Patent-trolls-put-brakes-on-S-F-transit-app-4778304.php?cmpid=gplus

The article says there are 34 patents under consideration.  I can almost guarantee some of the claims are valid.  Unfortunately, to determine whether this is a troll case, you would need to look and see how solid the infringement argument is.  If he doesn't infringe most the claims and the ones he does infringe are probably invalid it might be a troll case.  If so, that is unfortunate.

 

However, there are other considerations.  

First, it is very naive to think you can enter the high tech world and not run the risk of patent infringement.  It's a land grab and he came in second.  Tough luck.

Secondly, he should have gotten his own patents and had some fire power to cross-license.  If the other side isn't interested in cross-license then they probably aren't in the market, which means they are almost certainly willing to license.  He should take a license. 

post #96 of 107
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post
You are still avoiding the thread. However, the fact remains that you continue to avoid the thread. 

 

Nope. Why you pretend this is beyond me. 

You're avoiding the thread right now. See, you're avoiding it. Stop avoiding the thread. What does this even mean?


Your links provide statements about Virnetx suing people.  sapporobabyrtrns said, "Care to back up that claim that Apple did nothing wrong with a set of facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.... "

Where's your response?

 

Did you read the post you pretended to have read by quoting it?


Let me help you out. If you or someone else has done the proper analysis, you might be able to argue the district court got it wrong, in which case Apple should appeal.

 

Yeah, that's called a given. If you'd go to the links, particularly the last, you'd see why.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #97 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not asking you specifically JR.
Aaron Burnett, who has an up and coming app called Smart Ride, got one of "those letters". What realistic option do you believe he has?
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/dotcommentary/article/Patent-trolls-put-brakes-on-S-F-transit-app-4778304.php?cmpid=gplus

He has the same options that anyone else does:

1. He can pay the requested royalty.
2. He can negotiate a different royalty.
3. He can refuse to pay and hope he doesn't get caught.
4. He can wait until he gets sued and then litigate.
5. He can proactively challenge the patent.
6. He can file an anonymous request with the USPTO to have the patent re-examined.
7. He can choose not to make the allegedly infringing product.
And probably a few other options off the top of my head.

But what's your point? I have NEVER taken the position that no one misuses patents. Obviously, there are people who do. I'm simply objecting to the simple minded view that NPEs should not be allowed to hold a patent. Period. Your example doesn't address that issue at all.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #98 of 107
That's why I said I wasn't asking you JR. It wasn't meant as a challenge to anything you said.
Edited by Gatorguy - 9/1/13 at 8:46pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #99 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Once again, please shut up. I fail to see how "avoiding" a thread can be claimed.

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156832/apples-patent-suit-loss-to-virnetx-forces-vpn-behavior-changes

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154205/virnetx-sues-apple-again-after-winning-368m-patent-trial-verdict

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-14/virnetx-loses-patent-trial-to-cisco-over-private-networks

 

I'm not holding your hand any further. If you actually cared about the truth, you would have read through these yourself.

 

1st link - Apple lost the patent suit and were denied a second trial.  Definitely not proof that Apple did nothing wrong.  Suggests guilt in fact.

2nd link - VirnetX are suing Apple a second time over products not included in the second suit.  Judgement pending.  Definitely not proof that Apple did nothing wrong.  Pretty irrelevant, except as information about the court proceedings.

3rd link - VirnetX lost a patent suit against Cisco, over the use of the same patents that they are using against Apple.  As Cisco are a different company to Apple this is definitely not proof that Apple did nothing wrong.  If you can prove that Apple use the same approach as Cisco and this trial is a precedent then maybe you have something, but you haven't done that.

 

Try again.  Maybe start with what VirnetX patents are for and how Apple's products function using different methods.  That could be a proof.

 

But it's easier just to tell people to shut up and stop questioning your authoritah, isn't it?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #100 of 107
Apple will pay for 6 months then change face and she'll out a newer version via firmware!
post #101 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Nope. Why you pretend this is beyond me. 

 

I'm not pretending.  It is beyond you  And so are Crowley and Sapporobabytrns.  We wasted our time commenting on your non-responsive, ill-conscived drivel.  Note to self...ignore Tallest Skil.  

post #102 of 107
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post
I'm not pretending.

 

You're ignoring the thread. Why are you ignoring the thread? I don't see you here. Why are you ignoring the thread?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #103 of 107
In a pretty major ruling today the court has found Apple to have "grossly misrepresented " it's ability to workaround VirnetX infringed IP. The judge further says Apple is now choosing to willfully infringe the IP since the original finding. .As such the judge just increased the on-going royalty award, and by quite a lot.

http://docketreport.blogspot.com/2014/03/gross-misrepresentation-of-non.html
"While [Apple] has taken steps to mitigate its infringement, [it] grossly misrepresented its ability to implement a non-infringing alternative to the jury. The huge disparity between [Apple's] position at trial and [its] position post-judgment also warrants increasing the implied royalty rate. In light of the changed circumstances, the reasonable royalty rate should be increased by 25%. . . . [Apple's] ongoing willful infringement must also be considered. . . . While [defendant] contends it is not a willful infringer because it has a good faith belief that the patents-in-suit are invalid and that it does not infringe, the jury’s verdict and this Court’s judgment do not support [Apple's] belief. . . .While [it] has taken steps to implement non-infringing alternatives, [defendant] has not ceased all infringement. Considering four factors favor enhancing the implied royalty rate, the ongoing royalty rate is increased 50% to 0.98%."
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/11/14 at 3:19am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #104 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In a pretty major ruling today the court has found Apple to have "grossly misrepresented " it's ability to workaround VirnetX infringed IP. They've judge further says Apple is now choosing ro willfully infringe the IP since the original finding. .As such the judge just increased the on-going royalty award, and by quite a lot.

http://docketreport.blogspot.com/2014/03/gross-misrepresentation-of-non.html
"While [Apple] has taken steps to mitigate its infringement, [it] grossly misrepresented its ability to implement a non-infringing alternative to the jury. The huge disparity between [Apple's] position at trial and [its] position post-judgment also warrants increasing the implied royalty rate. In light of the changed circumstances, the reasonable royalty rate should be increased by 25%. . . . [Apple's] ongoing willful infringement must also be considered. . . . While [defendant] contends it is not a willful infringer because it has a good faith belief that the patents-in-suit are invalid and that it does not infringe, the jury’s verdict and this Court’s judgment do not support [Apple's] belief. . . .While [it] has taken steps to implement non-infringing alternatives, [defendant] has not ceased all infringement. Considering four factors favor enhancing the implied royalty rate, the ongoing royalty rate is increased 50% to 0.98%."

Apple needs to get this judge for their next run-in with Samsung.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #105 of 107

I feel very sorry for Apple, why should should be expected to pay up over a valid patent when they are on the verge of bankruptcy with barely enough cash in the bank to buy a small country like Luxembourg.

post #106 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

I feel very sorry for Apple, why should should be expected to pay up over a valid patent when they are on the verge of bankruptcy with barely enough cash in the bank to buy a small country like Luxembourg.
Thanks for digging this thing out from the grave. It's 6 months ago, for god's sake.
post #107 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post


Thanks for digging this thing out from the grave. It's 6 months ago, for god's sake.

 

Sorry about that, I didn't notice. Not sure how it happened. I must have clicked a reference link in an article and forgot where I was.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's FaceTime workarounds for VirnetX patent suit causing complaints, costs $2.4M per month