Apple suffers setback in new VirnetX patent suit over FaceTime

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38

    Because someday those patents will be worthless. Why not cash in now while they have some value and move on with your life instead of waiting out all the court battles. Maybe actually do something of value.

  • Reply 22 of 38
    ktappektappe Posts: 808member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    They aren't patent trolls. If you own patents, you are 100% legally allowed to assert your ownership rights.

     

    Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you trolling yourself? 

  • Reply 23 of 38
    I think all the reading for those whom think (VirnetX) is a true company are below:


    [URL=http://anewdomain.net/2012/11/06/who-is-virnetx-apple-must-pay-300m-plus-breaking/]http://anewdomain.net/2012/11/06/who-is-virnetx-apple-must-pay-300m-plus-breaking/[/URL]

    Also the coincidence that a company that held those patents in-question the very same ones asserted against Apple was turned by USPTO:

    [URL=http://virnetx.com/virnetx-announces-favorable-termination-of-patent-review/]http://virnetx.com/virnetx-announces-favorable-termination-of-patent-review/[/URL]

    [URL=http://virnetx.com/virnetx-announces-denial-of-apples-petitions-for-patent-review/]http://virnetx.com/virnetx-announces-denial-of-apples-petitions-for-patent-review/[/URL]

    Plus the association to SAIC to sue Apple:

    [URL=http://www.saic.com/]http://www.saic.com/[/URL]

    They have moved into the cyberspace over last couple of years to "secure" cyberspace.
  • Reply 24 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

     Add this judge to the list of Apple haters.


    Actually, Judge Leonard Davis is considered one of the most knowledgeable judges on Patents in the country. Take a look into his record and find out how often his rulings have been overturned/remanded by CAFC.

     

     

    It has nothing to do with him liking or not liking Apple. It has to do with the rule of law. In fact, Judge Davis has been known to rule in favor of Apple in the past . . . . http://www.ennisdailynews.com/statenews/judge-overturns-lawsuit-against-apple/

  • Reply 25 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post





    Just what do you think a patent troll is? Legality doesn't not make you a patent troll. Buying patents you have no intention of employing in a product, and preventing others from doing so; sitting on it with the only purpose to sue those who infringe is being a patent troll. It is a perversion of the original purpose of patents.



    Capitalism needs to clean up its act, getting rid of those who game the system while doing nothing to add value. Day trading, patent trolling, etc.

     

    Wrong. A patent is an asset. It can be bought & sold, rented out or locked away. It's up to the owners of a patent to decide how they want to use it.

     

    And what are you talking about buying patents to prevent others from using them? Why would a NPE spend money on a patent and then never license it out? Who would throw away money like that? Their best bet at being profitable it to have a strong portfolio of useful patents that they can get on-going license fees from. Hoarding patents is the exact opposite of this.

  • Reply 26 of 38
    For those here that do not understand,,,,,
    Patent trolls will do this more and more until they have sucked every company that seeks to innovate dead. Given how the patent office gives patents to Apple then drops them at the drop of a hat but supports broad general BS patents that owners have never used is so sad indeed.

    If Apple uses someones definitive patent technology, then fine. No issue. But its just a deep pockets issue. Apple has the money that they have earned and the trolls want it. If they offered to license the patent for a reasonable about of money, Apple would consider going for it. But the patent holder MUST protect their patent from every other patent holder that seeks to sue Apple for the same broad issue, They never agree to that. Its just a legal maneuver to make money. PERIOD.

    But 99% of these cases are patents about " a gas that gives life and the organism that uses it to "burn" fuel" 300 million dollars please!!! Each of you readers should send me 50$ just for breathing before I sue you. Hurry, my greed is growing. LOL
  • Reply 27 of 38
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post





    Just what do you think a patent troll is? Legality doesn't not make you a patent troll. Buying patents you have no intention of employing in a product, and preventing others from doing so; sitting on it with the only purpose to sue those who infringe is being a patent troll. It is a perversion of the original purpose of patents.



    Capitalism needs to clean up its act, getting rid of those who game the system while doing nothing to add value. Day trading, patent trolling, etc.

     

    Who do you think created "the system"? That's right, people who have an interest in it. You're spouting fantasyland nonsense.

  • Reply 28 of 38
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eldernorm View Post



    For those here that do not understand,,,,,

    Patent trolls will do this more and more until they have sucked every company that seeks to innovate dead. Given how the patent office gives patents to Apple then drops them at the drop of a hat but supports broad general BS patents that owners have never used is so sad indeed.



    If Apple uses someones definitive patent technology, then fine. No issue. But its just a deep pockets issue. Apple has the money that they have earned and the trolls want it. If they offered to license the patent for a reasonable about of money, Apple would consider going for it. But the patent holder MUST protect their patent from every other patent holder that seeks to sue Apple for the same broad issue, They never agree to that. Its just a legal maneuver to make money. PERIOD.



    But 99% of these cases are patents about " a gas that gives life and the organism that uses it to "burn" fuel" 300 million dollars please!!! Each of you readers should send me 50$ just for breathing before I sue you. Hurry, my greed is growing. LOL

     

    Not that you're saying anything uncommon, but capitalism relies on private property ownership and notions of what constitutes "property" (as long as human beings are not part of the mix) continues to expand, which is good for markets.

  • Reply 29 of 38
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    I agree that Apple should have bought VirnetX and not Beats.
    Communication apps are a much better investment than hip-hop music apps and garish hardware (patents?).
  • Reply 30 of 38
    connieconnie Posts: 101member

    Apple should pay Virtnetx what it owes them and keep it out of the courts. This is bad publicity for Apple if they lose the case.

  • Reply 31 of 38
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    They aren't patent trolls. If you own patents, you are 100% legally allowed to assert your ownership rights.

    If they bought patents and don't use them to manufacture anything, they are patent trolls.

  • Reply 32 of 38
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    If you own patents, you are 100% legally allowed to assert your ownership rights.

     

    That doesn’t preclude them being patent trolls.

     

    Remember: the definition of a patent troll is an entity that holds a patent not in physical or otherwise practical use.

  • Reply 33 of 38
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    That doesn’t preclude them being patent trolls.

    Remember: the definition of a patent troll is an entity that holds a patent not in physical or otherwise practical use.

    What time frame do you give them to use it?
  • Reply 34 of 38
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

    Why is it Apple can't use software design in patents and everyone else gets too? Samsung and others get to easily design around Apple patents yet Apple can't even challenge the obvious non-specificity of the VirnetX patents? Without being specific VirnetX is getting away with saying words so general it's like patenting the word "tool" making any tool covered under their patents instead a hammer or screwdriver, two totally different types of tools. Apple has had to be extremely specific and comprehensive in their patents while other don't need to be. Add this judge to the list of Apple haters.


    There's an important difference between this case and Apple's litigation involving Samsung. This case is being adjudicated in East Texas.

  • Reply 35 of 38
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    What time frame do you give them to use it?

     

    “As soon as infringement is reasonably suspected” with proof of the timeframe of discovery, I guess.

  • Reply 36 of 38
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    “As soon as infringement is reasonably suspected” with proof of the timeframe of discovery, I guess.

    I meant how soon does a patent holder have to use their patent before they're considered a patent troll?
  • Reply 37 of 38
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    I meant how soon does a patent holder have to use their patent before they're considered a patent troll?

     

    Oh, as long as the patent is valid, of course. They become a troll only when they sue others about it without having used it themselves.

  • Reply 38 of 38
    macnnmacnn Posts: 2member
    Too bad Apple didn't buy VirnetX when they had that option. Quality and resolution of FaceTime calls has declined after last change... The service used to broadcast directly from device to device, but is now forced to go via servers. I do hope that Apple will manage to come up with a good solution that solves these patent issues and not at least improves the overall quality experience (!)...
Sign In or Register to comment.