dasanman69 wrote: »
Ever hear of the guy that invented the intermittent windshield wipers? Should his patent be invalidated because he didn't start a car manufacturing company that would make cars with intermittent wipers? Not every patent can be implemented by it's owner. Some ideas are meant to be sold or licensed to other companies.
I use FaceTime at least a few hours everyday and I never had one problem for more than a year.
Wait, what? "At least a few hrs everyday?" WTF? I'm morbidly curious how and why you would have the need or time to video call for several hours every single day. Again, why??
Oh, shut up. You don't care enough to prove me wrong, don't bother posting.
Another typical non-answer response... At least you're consistent...
ash471 wrote: »
While you are at it, force all raw land holders to develop their land or lose it.
If we dug into this, I'll bet the original patent holders tried to license or sell and the industry told them to go pound sand.
Also, who says they sat on the patent. FaceTime hasn't been around for very long and they are well into litigation, which takes years.
tbell wrote: »
Do you mean Robert Kearns? What does he have to do with anything? Kearns was an actual inventor. He didn't just sit around all day thinking of vague ideas he could patent without any real conception or know how of how to make his inventions work. Kearns built a prototype intermittent wiper blade. He then took the invention to the big three to try and get licenses from them to produce his invention. .
SpamSandwich wrote: »
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Apple is quietly negotiating to buy their patents in toto.
For a service that has become core to Apple's iPhone, they won't want to be under the thumb of the IP holder and they may want to be able to leverage ownership of the IP over their competitors in the future.
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.
gatorguy wrote: »
A tiny correction. Kearns didn't approach them to license his patent. His life's dream was to sell them his own wiper assemblies he built in his own factory. Selling a license to the patent wasn't on his agenda.
digitalclips wrote: »
So you support the concept of patent trolls. Did you actually follow my link? They're sole existence is to do this. Your land analogy would be the equivalent of not a normal land owner, but one who bought tiny pieces of land simply to prevent worthwhile developments and basically held them ransom.
dasanman69 wrote: »
Either way he became a rich man.
scotty321 wrote: »
These patent trolls need to be stopped.
ealvarez wrote: »
Can Apple appeal of the judgment?
digitalclips wrote: »
It's a poker game, Apple could get this over turned so one would think they'd settle rather than risk it. After all it's the very reason they do this in the fist place. I hope it is over turned and very high damages are sought by Apple. The only way to fight back at these trolls is to make it so if they lose they pay big time. Otherwise they play a no risk game.
I use FaceTime at least a few hours everyday and I never had one problem for more than a year. It's weird that people complained about this free service. One thing I learn, FaceTime kills long distant phone business. I used to call my family idevices across the pacific and costed me a lot on phone cards every month. It's free now with FaceTime. Next, FaceTime Audio will kill a lot of provider calling plans because you can FT using 3G/4G. No more running out minutes every month.
Who says they complained, though? VirnetX? What's that worth?
jragosta wrote: »
Please learn something about the patent system.
There's no 'patent troll' here. The patent was litigated and found to be valid and infringed. Given that it was valid and infringed, the patent owner has every right to demand payment - and to stop infringement until a deal can be worked out.
The trolls whining about 'patent trolls' are the ones who need to be stopped.
What is the difference between a set of algorithms to handle an encoded connection (VPN) versus a set of algorithms to convert your text to pig latin? One is patentable while the other is not, or are they both patentable? I don't understand how a company can patent a set of software routines. Logic is not something that was invented, it is something that has existed for all of time.