or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › VirnetX heads back to court, adds latest Apple products to FaceTime patent lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

VirnetX heads back to court, adds latest Apple products to FaceTime patent lawsuit

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Patent holding company VirnetX on Tuesday announced that it will attempt to add Apple's most recent slate of products --?including the iPhone 5s and iPad Air --?to an ongoing patent infringement action that accuses Apple of violating VirnetX's secure networking patents.

FaceTime


According to the announcement, VirnetX has petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to allow the inclusion of Apple's iPad Air, iPad mini with Retina display, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPod Touch with Retina display, and latest Mac notebooks and desktops --?essentially, every product capable of making a FaceTime call --?in the suit over patents covering peer-to-peer VPN technologies.

VirnetX first took Apple to court in November 2011, alleging that the iPhone 4S's FaceTime capabilities infringed VirnetX's U.S. Patent No. 8,05,181 entitled "Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network." Apple lost that case and was ordered to pay damages of $368,160,000, an award that was appealed and later upheld.

Soon after that victory, VirnetX filed suit again, asserting the same intellectual property against the iPhone 5, fourth-generation iPad, iPad mini, fifth-generation iPod touch and the then-newest Mac computers. This second action is still pending, and is the suit VirnetX is seeking to amend.

Apple has since altered FaceTime's behavior to avoid further infringement, changes that are said to have been the source of more than half a million customer complaints and cost the company an additional $2.4 million per month.

VirnetX, however, does not believe Apple's changes have been substantial enough. In a news release announcing Tuesday's filing, CEO Kendall Larsen said the company believes "Apple continues to use our inventions in the majority of its products" and that they "are confident that we will prevail in proving that Apple products, including the new products added to the suit, infringe on our inventions."
post #2 of 29
I was going to say that Apple just needs to buy the company, but VirnetX is just a patent troll, they don't produce anything but lawsuits.
post #3 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DipDog3 View Post

I was going to say that Apple just needs to buy the company, but VirnetX is just a patent troll, they don't produce anything but lawsuits.

If Apple don't buy them out soon Google will.
post #4 of 29
Companies like this really need to be outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.
Edited by MikhailT - 1/14/14 at 5:52pm
post #5 of 29
This article is misleading. It claims the judgement on appeal against Apple was upheld. Not true. The initial trial judge affirmed his ruling on the case, but the Appeals court has not heard the case.
post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post

Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.

 

Agreed. The patents would be very useful foundations for academic programs and future engineering/cs students to study.

post #7 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post

Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.

VirnetX has actual products to sell, tho I don't think they bring in much revenue. Your idea wouldn't apply to them anyway even if it had merit.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


VirnetX has actual products to sell, tho I don't think they bring in much revenue. Your idea wouldn't apply to them anyway even if it had merit.

 

Really, what products? The companies website claims its is a patent holding company.  The only thing I see for sale is a license. 

post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Really, what products? The companies website claims its is a patent holding company.  The only thing I see for sale is a license. 

Gabriel Connection aka VirnetX Internet Services
http://virnetx.com/virnetx-launches-gabriel-connection-technology-oem-software-development-kit/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post

Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.

 

The problem with your argument is that some companies can't actually afford to build some of the things they invent, so that is where licensing comes in. What needs to be changed is the way patents are approved, and the time limit in which a company must file a lawsuit after learning its patent is possibly being violated. Currently, patents are purposefully written in a way that other companies trying to research patents have a difficult time finding relevant patents. This results in companies not being able to do a patent review even if they wanted to do so. Additionally, companies like VirnetX sit around quietly sometimes for years purposively allowing its alleged IP to be infringed waiting until a product is successful. There should be a year or less time requirement for filing a lawsuit after first learning of the alleged infringement. 

post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Gabriel Connection aka VirnetX Internet Services
http://virnetx.com/virnetx-launches-gabriel-connection-technology-oem-software-development-kit/

 

Fair enough. I still don't see where you can actually buy the product. 

post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


According to the announcement, VirnetX has petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to allow the inclusion of Apple's iPad Air, iPad mini with Retina display, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPod Touch with Retina display, and latest Mac notebooks and desktops --?essentially, every product capable of making a FaceTime call --?in the suit over patents covering peer-to-peer VPN technologies.
 

Why do these suits always seem to start in East Texas?

post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Fair enough. I still don't see where you can actually buy the product. 

I think it's there only to cover their butt on "patent troll" accusations. Technically they have product for sale.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

According to the announcement, VirnetX has petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to allow the inclusion of Apple's iPad Air, iPad mini with Retina display, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPod Touch with Retina display, and latest Mac notebooks and desktops --?essentially, every product capable of making a FaceTime call --?in the suit over patents covering peer-to-peer VPN technologies.

 
Why do these suits always seem to start in East Texas?

Because that venue has a deserved reputation for favoring the plaintiffs.
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

This article is misleading. It claims the judgement on appeal against Apple was upheld. Not true. The initial trial judge affirmed his ruling on the case, but the Appeals court has not heard the case.


It always amazes me to see how many people here celebrate the "victories" of Apple over Samsung (et al) .. how the cheers always reach a crescendo irrespective of how dubious the trial may have been, and how the howls of rage peel across the internet when the exact same patentl laws lead to judgements against Apple. Really people, you can't have one rule for Apple and another for the rest of the world.

 

What VirnetX is, is arguable a step above the consortium that Apple and Microsoft et al created to buy the Nortel Patents which they are now using in exactly the same way as any other Patent troll against Google et al. Talk about moral double standards !! It frankly amazes me.

 

But you know the saying "if you can't innovate, litigate".

 

Oh yes .. the Apple/Samsung litigation has also not completed the appeals process .. so how the F* is that any different to the VirnetX litigation you're talking about ?

 

At some point I think the US will litigate itself into economic collapse .. and frankly I won't be sad to see it happen unless you get your act together, clean up your legal system and create some place for sanity in your society.

 

What does make me sad is to think what a waste it is ... mutual assured destruction in every conceivable context. Wow !

post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I think it's there only to cover their butt on "patent troll" accusations. Technically they have product for sale.

 

You can try and register to use their "product":

 

https://myvirnetx.com/register/request

 

But it doesn't sound like they are really interested in having anyone use it:

Quote:
 Patience, it may take a few months for us to generate enough capacity to send you an invite.
post #17 of 29

It was a cold night. Some fat retard had nothing to do but think think think ....

.

.

.

.

.

Title:

 

Method for establishing secure communication link between computers of virtual private network

 

United States Patent 8051181

 

 

Abstract:

 

A technique is disclosed for establishing a secure communication link between a first computer and a second computer over a computer network. Initially, a secure communication mode of communication is enabled at a first computer without a user entering any cryptographic information for establishing the secure communication mode of communication. Then, a secure communication link is established between the first computer and a second computer over a computer network based on the enabled secure communication mode of communication. The secure communication link is a virtual private network communication link over the computer network in which one or more data values that vary according to a pseudo-random sequence are inserted into each data packet.

 

 

Who the **** approved this as so-called Patent?!?!?!

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post

Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.

 

No they shouldn't. The only thing a patent holding company should be blocked from doing is seeking an injunction to block sales, for the simple reason they don't have any products that could be blocked in a suit brought against them. Owning patents and making money off them by licensing and/or suing others is perfectly legal and acceptable.

 

Let's say I'm a physicist and I invent a new method to make even smaller transistors for microchips. The problem is that it would cost me 1$ billion (or more) to actually start making chips using my process (the price to buy a fab). So does that mean my patent should become public domain because I'm not actually fabbing chips? If Intel starts using my method to make new processors, I shouldn't be allowed to sue them because they're using my patented idea?

 

What you're basically saying is companies with the means to use their patents in actual products get patent protection while inventors who have great ideas, but lack the money to implement them should suffer? That's beyond asinine.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Why do these suits always seem to start in East Texas?

Because there my friend the world is flat, 6000 years old, circled by the sun moon and stars, dinosaurs still roam and CO2 count is less than .00001 ppm ...
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Gabriel Connection aka VirnetX Internet Services
http://virnetx.com/virnetx-launches-gabriel-connection-technology-oem-software-development-kit/

I wouldn't exactly call that a product. It is a Software Development Kit (SDK) that basically is a bit of code showing how their patent could be implemented. That is like selling the code behind 'slide to unlock' and calling it a product.

 

Be that as it may, how the heck the the east Texas jury figure that the way a FaceTime call is set-up is worth one third of all the patent infringement that Samsung did against Apple? I haven't used FaceTime in years. Has it suddenly become immensely popular?

post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Why do these suits always seem to start in East Texas?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


Because that venue has a deserved reputation for favoring the plaintiffs.

 

Surprising this article (or the posts appended) didn't mention this.  A company by the name of "Rembrandt IP Management" sued Apple today because, basically, everything Apple does or makes infringes their intellectual property.

 

And what does "Rembrandt IP Management" do, exactly? Well, "Rembrandt has provided patent owners with the necessary financial capital, in-depth research and analysis, industry expertise, and hands-on litigation management to help monetize their inventions.... Rembrandt frequently augments its internal team by engaging “best-in-class” legal and technical experts to assess opportunities and provide their talent and knowledge to obtain a return on infringed intellectual property."

 

Ah. Patent-troll-for-hire. And where, oh where, would this case be brought?

 

Quote:
Rembrandt IP Management, LLC (Rembrandt) affiliates Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC and Rembrandt Secure Computing, LP have filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 
 

Imagine that.

post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

No they shouldn't. The only thing a patent holding company should be blocked from doing is seeking an injunction to block sales, for the simple reason they don't have any products that could be blocked in a suit brought against them. Owning patents and making money off them by licensing and/or suing others is perfectly legal and acceptable.

 

Let's say I'm a physicist and I invent a new method to make even smaller transistors for microchips. The problem is that it would cost me 1$ billion (or more) to actually start making chips using my process (the price to buy a fab). So does that mean my patent should become public domain because I'm not actually fabbing chips? If Intel starts using my method to make new processors, I shouldn't be allowed to sue them because they're using my patented idea?

 

What you're basically saying is companies with the means to use their patents in actual products get patent protection while inventors who have great ideas, but lack the money to implement them should suffer? That's beyond asinine.

I agree with your comments but after reading the first part of the patent, there's nothing special or original being patented. I don't know who came up with VPN but it probably wasn't these guys and all they seemed to patent was a process, not a real product like the transistors you mentioned. I go back to the intermittent windshield wiper design. The guy who developed this built a working model and fought automakers who blatantly stole the design. The process VirnetX was able to get the stupid USPTO to patent is so basic, even when it was patented, that it shouldn't have been patented. It's like patenting putting butter on toasted bread. Nothing original to it.

post #23 of 29
U.S. Patent No. 8,05,181.... that is a number?
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

I agree with your comments but after reading the first part of the patent, there's nothing special or original being patented. I don't know who came up with VPN but it probably wasn't these guys and all they seemed to patent was a process, not a real product like the transistors you mentioned. I go back to the intermittent windshield wiper design. The guy who developed this built a working model and fought automakers who blatantly stole the design. The process VirnetX was able to get the stupid USPTO to patent is so basic, even when it was patented, that it shouldn't have been patented. It's like patenting putting butter on toasted bread. Nothing original to it.
That's what makes these vague patents so hard to fight once they are awarded. The vaguer the better they are as a weapon.

Please Apple, just buy the troll and bring FaceTime back to the superb quality it used to be!!
They have stacks of money - this would be a perfect use for it. Hostile takeover or something.
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post

Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.

 

Complete nonsense. Look, Apple has just as much opportunity to file for patents as small-time inventors or direct competitors. Patents even the playing field.

 

Apple needs to be on the lookout for potential infringements and either buy out the IP immediately, license it or come up with workarounds. This is a case of intellectual property lawyers not doing their due diligence, quite honestly. I'm serious. If I were responsible (as part of Apple's in-house legal team) for defending one of the largest companies on Earth from patent infringement cases, I'd be combing the USPTO applications to make sure the Apple board and the CEO were always well aware of potential problems coming down the pipeline.

 

There is a very obvious cost of doing business at Apple's level and I'm not seeing the proper defensive measures being put in place. As a shareholder, I'd appreciate it if their legal team had the opportunity to review all IP in development at the same time it is being applied for. Intellectual Ventures does a commendable job in tearing down products to search for IP infringements. With billions in the bank and billions more being made every quarter, it is up to Apple to take the right legal measures as early as possible.


Edited by SpamSandwich - 1/14/14 at 6:10pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostkiwi View Post


That's what makes these vague patents so hard to fight once they are awarded. The vaguer the better they are as a weapon.

Please Apple, just buy the troll and bring FaceTime back to the superb quality it used to be!!
They have stacks of money - this would be a perfect use for it. Hostile takeover or something.

 

Writing a solid patent is an art, not really a science. You're right about a broad patent being desirable, and I'm sure it's a very fine line for the applicant(s) to find that sweet spot.

 

I disagree with the loaded term, "patent troll". It's lazy populism on the part of the parties that find themselves on the wrong end of a patent infringement lawsuit. If they were the ones pressing the infringement suit, you can bet your last dollar they would not view themselves as anything but justified.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

Writing a solid patent is an art, not really a science. You're right about a broad patent being desirable, and I'm sure it's a very fine line for the applicant(s) to find that sweet spot.

 

I disagree with the loaded term, "patent troll". It's lazy populism on the part of the parties that find themselves on the wrong end of a patent infringement lawsuit. If they were the ones pressing the infringement suit, you can bet your last dollar they would not view themselves as anything but justified.

I agree that perhaps 'patent troll' was a bit over the top.  I stand by the rest of the paragraph though.  FaceTime was awesome.  Its still better than Skype for my uses, but is no longer miles better.  Perhaps they should buy VirnetX and for their legal team as well as their patents?

..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
post #28 of 29
To VirnetX:
Are you out of your FUCKING mind?! Why are you shoot the pic of Apple's copyright devices on your fucking website?!

Apple should countersue VirtnetX for shoot that pic of Apple's copyright devices!!

Website: http://virnetx.com (scroll down until u saw ho's tits play by fingering on iPad, Apple keyboard, Magic Mouse and MacBook Pro)

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostkiwi View Post

I agree that perhaps 'patent troll' was a bit over the top.  I stand by the rest of the paragraph though.  FaceTime was awesome.  Its still better than Skype for my uses, but is no longer miles better.  Perhaps they should buy VirnetX and for their legal team as well as their patents?

I'd like Apple to buy them also, but VirnetX has the golden goose of patents. They'll continue to make truckloads of money until their patent eventually expires...and it will one day.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • VirnetX heads back to court, adds latest Apple products to FaceTime patent lawsuit
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › VirnetX heads back to court, adds latest Apple products to FaceTime patent lawsuit