Guys, to set the record straight here are a few facts.
- VHC originally won $368 Million from Apple. Apple appealed on 3 levels (1. the patents are invalid. 2. we did not infringe 3. we don't think we owe that much). The court of appeals (CAFC) struck down Apple on #1 and #2 (the patents are valid, and Apple does infringe) and they kicked the monetary award (#3) back to court. Today's outcome was the result.
- VHC is comprised of the inventors of the patents while they worked at SAIC. This isn't some NPE that just bought someone else's patents that were lying around. The guys suing AAPL have their names on the actual patents.
- Apple was found to wilfully infringe today. In other words, they knew they infringed and they kept doing it.
Please educate yourselves before painting VirnetX as your typical money grubbing NPE.
And remember: "Good artists copy, great artists steal" -Steve Jobs
Has this judgement gone thru "least salable unit" analysis, or an analysis of what percentage of an iPhone's value results from having this single feature, out of the hundreds of features and thousands of patents on iPhones, just by Apple? In the industry, no party generally pays more than a few hundred million in cross-licensing fees to another, also holding hundreds of patents. Witness Samsung, Ericsson, etc. Also, what percentage of iPhone users even use FaceTime audio, either via the SAIC "stolen property" or the workaround? Or the SAIC implementation going forward after *final* appeals, which may just hold the idea of VPN unpatentable? Sorry, but the Supremes have already hinted that NPEs cannot just say that a company violated just one patent, so "give us X% (X huge) of your profits", even for a "chokehold" patent which this is not.
Guys, to set the record straight here are a few facts.
- VHC originally won $368 Million from Apple. Apple appealed on 3 levels (1. the patents are invalid. 2. we did not infringe 3. we don't think we owe that much). The court of appeals (CAFC) struck down Apple on #1 and #2 (the patents are valid, and Apple does infringe) and they kicked the monetary award (#3) back to court. Today's outcome was the result.
- VHC is comprised of the inventors of the patents while they worked at SAIC. This isn't some NPE that just bought someone else's patents that were lying around. The guys suing AAPL have their names on the actual patents.
- Apple was found to wilfully infringe today. In other words, they knew they infringed and they kept doing it.
Please educate yourselves before painting VirnetX as your typical money grubbing NPE.
And remember: "Good artists copy, great artists steal" -Steve Jobs
Look, the way it works around here is Apple is the good guy and everyone else is a bad guy. Remember, Apple never infringes on anyone elses IP. It's always the other way around - Apple is the perpetual victim that has it's IP infringed on. Ignore anything courts or juries or trade bodies say to the contrary, they are just bad guys too.
Guys, to set the record straight here are a few facts.
- VHC originally won $368 Million from Apple. Apple appealed on 3 levels (1. the patents are invalid. 2. we did not infringe 3. we don't think we owe that much). The court of appeals (CAFC) struck down Apple on #1 and #2 (the patents are valid, and Apple does infringe) and they kicked the monetary award (#3) back to court. Today's outcome was the result.
- VHC is comprised of the inventors of the patents while they worked at SAIC. This isn't some NPE that just bought someone else's patents that were lying around. The guys suing AAPL have their names on the actual patents.
- Apple was found to wilfully infringe today. In other words, they knew they infringed and they kept doing it.
Please educate yourselves before painting VirnetX as your typical money grubbing NPE.
And remember: "Good artists copy, great artists steal" -Steve Jobs
Has this judgement gone thru "least salable unit" analysis, or an analysis of what percentage of an iPhone's value results from having this single feature, out of the hundreds of features and thousands of patents on iPhones, just by Apple?
Doesn't really matter as a recent Fed Appeals Court decision (CSIRO v. Cisco) tossed out the "smallest salable unit" requirement that Apple and others have sometimes argued for. Real world negotiations carry more weight.
You have no fracking clue dumbass, stop talking out of your ass.
You fanboys can construe Jobs' quote however you want whilst stroking your bearded necks. The fact is that Apple steals, they've been caught stealing, and now they have to pay for it.
You're truly clueless, true neckbeards use Linux, not OS X.
You have no fracking clue dumbass, stop talking out of your ass.
You fanboys can construe Jobs' quote however you want whilst stroking your bearded necks. The fact is that Apple steals, they've been caught stealing, and now they have to pay for it.
I see you're over on Ars as well. Does VirnetX pay well?
Guys, to set the record straight here are a few facts.
- VHC originally won $368 Million from Apple. Apple appealed on 3 levels (1. the patents are invalid. 2. we did not infringe 3. we don't think we owe that much). The court of appeals (CAFC) struck down Apple on #1 and #2 (the patents are valid, and Apple does infringe) and they kicked the monetary award (#3) back to court. Today's outcome was the result.
- VHC is comprised of the inventors of the patents while they worked at SAIC. This isn't some NPE that just bought someone else's patents that were lying around. The guys suing AAPL have their names on the actual patents.
- Apple was found to wilfully infringe today. In other words, they knew they infringed and they kept doing it.
Please educate yourselves before painting VirnetX as your typical money grubbing NPE.
And remember: "Good artists copy, great artists steal" -Steve Jobs
No matter what he was bragging about in the car, the Xerox stuff wasn't stolen; it was paid for with one million dollars of pre-IPO Apple stock. I wonder how much that stock would be worth today?
Neither of those articles provide any proof. It's all anecdotal, much like the original quote.
What's anecdotal about it? The evidence is from the Xerox folk who were actually there, and certainly explains why Xerox didn't sue.
It is pretty odd that these no-name patent holding companies can spring up and then win verdicts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Where are the big tech companies when these patents are for sale. Instead, they buy up huge patent portfolios that turn out to be pretty much worthless in court. Just ask Google.
How would Google know if their patents are worthless in court? They've not ever sued anyone over them.
Ah, right. You're sticking with that rather bizarre argument that Google has no control over what the Motorola patents do, even though they own them.
You fanboys can construe Jobs' quote however you want whilst stroking your bearded necks. The fact is that Apple steals, they've been caught stealing, and now they have to pay for it.
I see you're over on Ars as well. Does VirnetX pay well?
The best way to secure FaceTime, iCloud, WhatsApp, Viber, Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and all other data on all iOS devices, be it an iPhone or iPad, is to use a VPN service called PureVPN. It's got 256-bit of data encryption power and IKEv2 protocol for fast and secure transmission of encrypted data. It's best for being encrypted, undetectable and completely secured on the internet!
Flagged this post for trolling. Advertising a specific product. There are plenty of good VPN offerings out there. Ignore this paid shill and do your own research. Buh-bye!
It is pretty odd that these no-name patent holding companies can spring up and then win verdicts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Where are the big tech companies when these patents are for sale. Instead, they buy up huge patent portfolios that turn out to be pretty much worthless in court. Just ask Google.
How would Google know if their patents are worthless in court? They've not ever sued anyone over them.
Ah, right. You're sticking with that rather bizarre argument that Google has no control over what the Motorola patents do, even though they own them.
You mean bizarre that Google didn't tell Moto to drop the lawsuit against Microsoft that had already been filed and in trial before Google ever bought them? What's so bizarre about that? MS wasn't dropping their lawsuit filed against Moto AFAIK. No new actions were started under Google's Moto watch and no patent infringement suits have been filed since either. THAT'S why it's a bit silly and presumptuous to claim Google's patents are worthless. Exceptionally few have ever been tested, and none of the former Motorola patents have been asserted in a IP case filed by Google or any Google-owned subsidiary at the time of filing. I'd be pretty secure in opining that hidden among the over 20,0000 patents that Google controls there's a few that would give pause to a competitor with an eye on suing them. The fact that Moto lost a lawsuit doesn't make the Motorola portfolio worthless. In fact between Apple, Microsoft and Google the one with the most powerful patents as determined in a relatively recent patent quality study is...
The US patent office is broken and will take a bribe to register almost anything helpful down the line to prevent competition or enrich patent trolls and lawyers. Time to fix it and purge the ludicrous part of their design -rounded rectangle- and software -overscroll bounce, there VPN communication method- "patents".
No matter what he was bragging about in the car, the Xerox stuff wasn't stolen; it was paid for with one million dollars of pre-IPO Apple stock. I wonder how much that stock would be worth today?
No matter what he was bragging about in the car, the Xerox stuff wasn't stolen; it was paid for with one million dollars of pre-IPO Apple stock. I wonder how much that stock would be worth today?
It is pretty odd that these no-name patent holding companies can spring up and then win verdicts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Where are the big tech companies when these patents are for sale. Instead, they buy up huge patent portfolios that turn out to be pretty much worthless in court. Just ask Google.
How would Google know if their patents are worthless in court? They've not ever sued anyone over them.
Comments
They always do.
What's anecdotal about it? The evidence is from the Xerox folk who were actually there, and certainly explains why Xerox didn't sue.
What's so bizarre about that? MS wasn't dropping their lawsuit filed against Moto AFAIK. No new actions were started under Google's Moto watch and no patent infringement suits have been filed since either. THAT'S why it's a bit silly and presumptuous to claim Google's patents are worthless. Exceptionally few have ever been tested, and none of the former Motorola patents have been asserted in a IP case filed by Google or any Google-owned subsidiary at the time of filing. I'd be pretty secure in opining that hidden among the over 20,0000 patents that Google controls there's a few that would give pause to a competitor with an eye on suing them. The fact that Moto lost a lawsuit doesn't make the Motorola portfolio worthless. In fact between Apple, Microsoft and Google the one with the most powerful patents as determined in a relatively recent patent quality study is...
Google, with Apple close behind.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt
Taking your reasoning then Samsung owes nothing!