VirnetX is a patent troll or "holding corporation" as they like to call themselves. This is not a real company with engineers and scientists and actual products. They have 13 employees and a lot of patents and lawyers. They are located on Lake Tahoe in Nevada just a few miles from the California border.
Their current market cap is 1.8 Billion. So Apple could buy them but unless Apple wants to become a patent troll and go after others, it is probably a lot cheaper to just come to some reasonable licensing terms.
I really wish people would stop this stupid "patent troll" crap - especially people who don't know what they're talking about.
"holding company" is not synonymous with "patent troll" even if you want to pretend that there is such a thing. Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company.. General Electric is a holding company. I can't imagine anyone calling either of them "patent trolls".
You post this every time the subject comes up. What, exactly, are you arguing? That patent trolls don't exist, that a particular definition is incorrect, that they exist but the term is inappropriate, or just that they are doing nothing illegal?
This might explain the reason FaceTime was never made open source as originally stated would be the case.
I have often wondered why this was the case. i remember when they were announcing FaceTime they made a big deal about it using open technologies and that it would soon be opened to everybody.
I really wish people would stop this stupid "patent troll" crap - especially people who don't know what they're talking about.
"holding company" is not synonymous with "patent troll" even if you want to pretend that there is such a thing. Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company.. General Electric is a holding company. I can't imagine anyone calling either of them "patent trolls".
You tell us that every time the topic comes up, we obviously disagree. I have taken the time on numerous occasions to point out what makes a patent holder a troll.
I have often wondered why this was the case. i remember when they were announcing FaceTime they made a big deal about it using open technologies and that it would soon be opened to everybody.
Great point...SIP has always been open and just about everyone uses it. From my understanding, when Secure SIP was developed, it was also understood to be open...and somewhere along the line VIRNETX scooped up the patents on the cheap (I think I read $30M) and is now going after everyone in the industry...
Just about any Company doing secure VOIP is potentially at risk...this is the sort of thing that kills innovation IMO.
Had the industry suspected Secure SIP would have been commercialized as it has been, competing technologies would have emerged through the years...everyone assumed (incorrectly) this day would never come.
VHC is dangerous as they've based their business model in securing similar patents in hopes of catching the industry with their pants down....brilliant you could say...or ruthless and unethical.
So why isn't Apple getting $1,000,000 per day every day that the Samsung trial goes "unfinished"?
Why? Because this patent is a very specific, patent-worthy operation. Not a rectangle. Not icons that have been around for decades. This is what a patent *really* is supposed to be. Not broad, vague or all-encompassing patents. Duh!
I really wish people would stop this stupid "patent troll" crap - especially people who don't know what they're talking about.
"holding company" is not synonymous with "patent troll" even if you want to pretend that there is such a thing. Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company.. General Electric is a holding company. I can't imagine anyone calling either of them "patent trolls".
This is how Chief Judge Rader of the US Court of Appeals defines a Patent Troll:
"Let me tell you my definition of a patent troll — A patent troll is anybody who asserts a patent far beyond the value of its contribution to the art. That means that any institution can be a troll.We all understand that there are entities that are created solely for the purpose of litigating patents, which is not intrinsically bad. Again, if they are properly valuing and properly using the system to vindicate the incentives in investment and opportunities on behalf of the Patent Act there is no problem in that.
The problem comes when they will sue on a minor, minor patent… and then keep the infringement contentions very vague. Then approach and say “wink, wink, you know this is going to cost you $2 to $3 million in discovery expense alone. I’ll be happy to save you money by settling at far less than that.” And, of course, that it litigation blackmail. That’s the tactical use of the expense of the system, which is abusive. And I’m happy to say that the Federal Circuit and its Advisory Council is targeting for some kind of correction."
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
VirnetX is a patent troll or "holding corporation" as they like to call themselves. This is not a real company with engineers and scientists and actual products. They have 13 employees and a lot of patents and lawyers. They are located on Lake Tahoe in Nevada just a few miles from the California border.
Their current market cap is 1.8 Billion. So Apple could buy them but unless Apple wants to become a patent troll and go after others, it is probably a lot cheaper to just come to some reasonable licensing terms.
I really wish people would stop this stupid "patent troll" crap - especially people who don't know what they're talking about.
"holding company" is not synonymous with "patent troll" even if you want to pretend that there is such a thing. Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company.. General Electric is a holding company. I can't imagine anyone calling either of them "patent trolls".
You post this every time the subject comes up. What, exactly, are you arguing? That patent trolls don't exist, that a particular definition is incorrect, that they exist but the term is inappropriate, or just that they are doing nothing illegal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
This might explain the reason FaceTime was never made open source as originally stated would be the case.
I have often wondered why this was the case. i remember when they were announcing FaceTime they made a big deal about it using open technologies and that it would soon be opened to everybody.
Apple still has a right to appeal and it likely will.
You tell us that every time the topic comes up, we obviously disagree. I have taken the time on numerous occasions to point out what makes a patent holder a troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Apple still has a right to appeal and it likely will.
Really?
Quotes (from the article):
$368 million VirnetX court victory over Apple upheld...
... Judge Davis' decision awards VirnetX $368,160,000 and denies Apple's request for a new trial.
Looks pretty final to me.
Great point...SIP has always been open and just about everyone uses it. From my understanding, when Secure SIP was developed, it was also understood to be open...and somewhere along the line VIRNETX scooped up the patents on the cheap (I think I read $30M) and is now going after everyone in the industry...
Just about any Company doing secure VOIP is potentially at risk...this is the sort of thing that kills innovation IMO.
Had the industry suspected Secure SIP would have been commercialized as it has been, competing technologies would have emerged through the years...everyone assumed (incorrectly) this day would never come.
VHC is dangerous as they've based their business model in securing similar patents in hopes of catching the industry with their pants down....brilliant you could say...or ruthless and unethical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So why isn't Apple getting $1,000,000 per day every day that the Samsung trial goes "unfinished"?
Why? Because this patent is a very specific, patent-worthy operation. Not a rectangle. Not icons that have been around for decades. This is what a patent *really* is supposed to be. Not broad, vague or all-encompassing patents. Duh!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I really wish people would stop this stupid "patent troll" crap - especially people who don't know what they're talking about.
"holding company" is not synonymous with "patent troll" even if you want to pretend that there is such a thing. Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company.. General Electric is a holding company. I can't imagine anyone calling either of them "patent trolls".
This is how Chief Judge Rader of the US Court of Appeals defines a Patent Troll:
"Let me tell you my definition of a patent troll — A patent troll is anybody who asserts a patent far beyond the value of its contribution to the art. That means that any institution can be a troll. We all understand that there are entities that are created solely for the purpose of litigating patents, which is not intrinsically bad. Again, if they are properly valuing and properly using the system to vindicate the incentives in investment and opportunities on behalf of the Patent Act there is no problem in that.
The problem comes when they will sue on a minor, minor patent… and then keep the infringement contentions very vague. Then approach and say “wink, wink, you know this is going to cost you $2 to $3 million in discovery expense alone. I’ll be happy to save you money by settling at far less than that.” And, of course, that it litigation blackmail. That’s the tactical use of the expense of the system, which is abusive. And I’m happy to say that the Federal Circuit and its Advisory Council is targeting for some kind of correction."
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/28/chief-judge-rader-speaks-out-about-patent-litigation-abuse/id=36252/
He had much more to say for anyone interested.