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

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 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.  

  • Reply 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?

  • Reply 103 of 107
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    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
    [I]"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%."[/I]
  • Reply 104 of 107
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,513member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 106 of 107
    analogjack wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 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.

Sign In or Register to comment.