Ah well, good for the US economy with all the VirnetX supporters here. Bog yourselves down in lawsuits and stop creating anything of value. Maybe building walls and starting trade wars will bring jobs back.
Denying the inventors the just reward for their work is NOT how you build a strong economy. Apple is the one brinigng lawsuits - seven years worth - to avoid paying a few cents per product to the company on which the technology is based. Shame on them, and shame on you for being such a persistent fool.
Sorry, but you know something is wrong with a system and then later have that patent bought by a company which has deep pockets to go after companies which, you know, actually create products, and have that company get almost half a billion dollars for it. A few hours spent and someone gets half a billion dollars. What behaviour are we incentivizing here? Why actually do hard work and create things when you can get paid for doing next to nothing?
You know what's wrong? Every single word you wrote. Nothing in your quote describes Virnetx. If you're going to complain, at least understand what you're complaining about. This patent issue has been around long enough for people to at least be familiar with the parties involved.
The only thing which is wrong is that they didn't purchase the patents but instead founded a spinoff company to pursue them. As someone who has spent countless hours creating technology for real products, I find it extremely offensive that if I accidentally created a product which contained something which someone spent a couple of hours/days writing on a piece of paper, my company could be sued for a huge portion of it's revenue and likely taken out. What's important to the world? Pieces of paper or products which actually benefit humanity?
The only thing which is wrong is everything you wrote. Just as I said originally. Not only is everything wrong, everything is entirely made up by you. That is unless you have a source for that fan fiction you wrote: "when someone can spend a couple of hours writing an intentionally broadly worded technology idea down on a piece of paper, send it to the patent office," I find it extremely offensive that you would post this fiction and expect someone to take it seriously. There was no accidental patent violation. Apple knew of the VirnetX patents and ignored them. Please stop making up these poorly thought out hypothetical scenarios. They don't help your argument at all.
So that I'm clear, I'm not defending VirnetX. I am expressly criticizing your quotes. They're inaccurate, devoid of any factual info, and just flat out wrong. Worse, instead of acknowledging that you may not know anything about this case or VirnetX, you double down with more fan fiction. Not a good look.
Many are jumping to conclusions based on information from the AUTHOR of this article! It takes MUCH more than one court opinion to paint the landscape.
VirnetX DID NOT create video chat/calling...AND, they don't claim to doing that! That's something that would be EASILY debunked.
For those who do not know, VirnetX's patented technology is a one- or no-click technology that creates instant security of your communications. That's the invention! Does Apple want their communication via iMessage, Facetime, VPN on Demand to be secure and simple? Of course they do! Apple's customers demand and expect that. How often do you hear Apple or Tim Cook grandstand about privacy and security that's incorporated within their solutions? Security and privacy are part of Apple's core principals.
Apple just so happened to adopted VirnetX's patented tech to accomplish their secure connection links...it's that simple. Then, Apple - like most margin conscious companies - did not want to license or pay. VirnetX got the full bully treatment for years and years and it's finally coming to a head now. It's really AMAZING that Apple was not able to bankrupt VHC during the process.
Don't be mad at VirnetX. Apple is stealing the tech...they simply do not want to pay for the invention. For folks to argue that "now you'll pay more for your iPhone, etc." is ludicrous! Inventors need to be compensated fair value for their inventions. Thanks for listening if you read this far.
Apple is a global thief, Wait until they get hit with an additional $600 Million for Virnetx.
Apple created Facetime. Virnetx is nothing more than a patent troll.
I also bet you use knockoff iPhones while calling Apple a "thief".
Apple did create Facetime. But VirnetX patented the technology that makes it possible.
At that's what the courts have been believing. I find it hard to believe, even in Eastern Texas courts, that at least 3 juries have found in favor of VirnetX if they didn't actually develop the technology Apple is using.
Software patents are bunk to begin with, because they are patents for ideas rather than implementations. Implemented ideas = code, which is already copyright protected, and I haven’t heard anyone accuse Apple of copying source code.
If a patent claim depends on a software patent that describes an idea, rather than actual source code, then the claim is bogus.
This is why software patents shouldn’t even exist.
Sorry, but you know something is wrong with a system when someone can spend a couple of hours writing an intentionally broadly worded technology idea down on a piece of paper, send it to the patent office, and then later have that patent bought by a company which has deep pockets to go after companies which, you know, actually create products, and have that company get almost half a billion dollars for it. A few hours spent and someone gets half a billion dollars. What behaviour are we incentivizing here? Why actually do hard work and create things when you can get paid for doing next to nothing?
VirnetX is a spinoff of the former federal contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a company which developed security technology for Homeland Security and other federal agencies. All of the patents held by VirnetX were co-invented by VirtnetX's Founder and CTO, Dr. Robert Short. So to say that VirnetX is a patent troll and just bought this patent to go after Apple is just straight WRONG. Please do some research before you accuse!
Do your own homework - SAIC is not a former federal contractor, they are a current one. And it’s all they do now.
Refresher: There are two parallel systems involved with patent validity.
One is the patent office itself who issued the patents and wants to nullify them saying they were overbroad and anticipated by network standards committee documents (RFCs) fleshing out end-to-end encryption. The PTAB authority has domain-level experts.
The other system is the courts, who use different standards, and non-expert lay juries including the ones attached to the infamous Eastern District of Texas who are easily swayed by lawyers in the adversarial system.
The Supreme Court has commented that it's strange to have two systems, but Congress designed it this way and only the legislative branch can try to straighten the messy system out with new law. So, it's a turf war.
Meanwhile the security standards were implemented by different companies (including Cisco, Apple, and Microsoft) in different ways. These companies rolled out actual products, but VirnetX peddled the overbroad patent claims saying they were "first".
Dr. Short may have had some nifty implementation wrinkle, but VirnetX wants folks to believe they invented end-to-end encryption, when what they do is basically implement DNS lookups to secure domains ending in .scom. This is not stuff that appears as novel in textbooks on network security, just a workman-like engineering effort subject to multiple re-invention.
To add to the insult, VirnetX thinks their one improvement idea is worth multiple hundreds of millions, or a significant percentage of sales. The iPhone utilizes literally thousands of hacks -- Apple and the rest of the industry would pay this amount only for complete bundles of thousands of patents from established cellphone technology companies like Qualcomm and ye olde Motorola. So the issue of proper "apportionment" is in flux. Adding to all that is the Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, which since 2014 has provided a dim view of software patents in general.
Since VirnetX conned some patent clerk to accept broad language in their issuance which may even be upheld by appeals courts, they may yet win on a technicality, but it won't be because they invented *the* way to turn an iMessage from the color green (unsecure SMS) to the color blue (a bit more secure, until backup-to-iCloud at least).
It's ALMOST amusing to hear people call VirnetX a "patent troll". Do they know ANYTHING about the history of this case?? As a former Chief Engineer for SAIC, let me inform them....
SAIC developed the security technology under a contract from DHS. DHS wanted commercial development of the technology because that would drive the cost of secure products down, and was in the best interests of the US Government. So they gave patent rights to SAIC.
But SAIC went through some upheavals of its own, splitting the company into LEIDOS and SAIC, and many executives left because the company seemed to be tearing itself apart. Some of those left were the ones in charge of the DHS security project and formed VirnetX, and SAIC let them take the patent rights with them.
So Apple executives decide they can take advantage of this turmoil and use the patented technology without paying any licensing fees. Their own engineers cautioned Apple that they were violating patents (there is written proof), but the Apple execs didn't care. When first challenged, Apple claimed they had invented their own technology and removed the offending code. But it was subsequently proven that Apple had done no such thing - they had tried and failed, and then put patent-offending code back in the product. They lied to the court.
Apple has tried every legal maneuver they can think of, and some that I'm sure must be illegal, to prevent VirnetX from prevailing in this patent case. From what I can tell, they had puppet companies try to manipulate VHC stock. And they had others file suits to invalidate the patents after they were told to cease and desist. Apple's actions have been willfully deceitful (as found by multiple juries) and not worthy of a company sitting on $50 billion in profits that THEY did not fully earn.
"Patent troll" indeed. What does one call a large company that uses its economic might to deny payment to smaller companies whose inventions they steal???
Apple is a global thief, Wait until they get hit with an additional $600 Million for Virnetx.
Apple created Facetime. Virnetx is nothing more than a patent troll.
I also bet you use knockoff iPhones while calling Apple a "thief".
You may use swamp language that Virnetx is a troll but the fact remains that Apple is "einen veltlichen rauber" and they will pay through their nose for their misdeeds.
My my, this story has brought out the 1-post-wonders...aka astroturfers.
Steve Jobs said "Picasso had a saying: good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas..."
Yes, Apple was the first to incorporate FaceTime into it's platform. However, they wilfully use VirnetX patented security software to secure it, and also to secure iMessage and VPNoD.
The CAFC vacated these PTAB judgments because Apple uses its influence in that arena to destroy patent holders who find it difficult financially to overcome the most richest company in the world with all its legal resources. But the time has now come for Apple to pay up: ~400 million as soon as the CAFC denies Apple's en banc request for re-hearing. And soon after that I expect Apple to pay VirnetX a subsequent ~600 million for patent infringement on current Apple products, and pay a $1.20 royalty going forward on all Apple internet connected products.
I have been an Apple user since 1986 - that's 33 years. But at some point I knew Steve Jobs mantra was bound to meet its destiny. And that destiny is VirnetX.
Steve Jobs said "Picasso had a saying: good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas..."
The key word in that phrase is "ideas" - an idea is not an implementation, and it's only implementations that receive legal protection. Apple has absolutely copied ideas that others have had, but has spent a great deal of effort improving each concept, simplifying and refining until the benefits are maximised and the drawbacks minimised. And other companies then copy the superficial features of Apple's implementations and claim to be "just as good."
I have no idea if Apple used the VirnetX technology, but this is why the judicial system exists - to analyse the complex situations and arrive at simple decisions. As Vr0513 says, for this many courts to find in favour of the claimant there must be a relatively substantial basis for the action.
Apple is a global thief, Wait until they get hit with an additional $600 Million for Virnetx.
Apple created Facetime. Virnetx is nothing more than a patent troll.
I also bet you use knockoff iPhones while calling Apple a "thief".
Apple did create Facetime. But VirnetX patented the technology that makes it possible.
At that's what the courts have been believing. I find it hard to believe, even in Eastern Texas courts, that at least 3 juries have found in favor of VirnetX if they didn't actually develop the technology Apple is using.
Software patents are bunk to begin with, because they are patents for ideas rather than implementations. Implemented ideas = code, which is already copyright protected, and I haven’t heard anyone accuse Apple of copying source code.
If a patent claim depends on a software patent that describes an idea, rather than actual source code, then the claim is bogus.
This is why software patents shouldn’t even exist.
Agree with you for the most part, except that software patents DO now exist and have since 1968, and Apple has benefitted from filing or buying the "ideas" they represent, asserting them as needed or using them for defense. In this case it's software patents being used against them.
Whether you and I believe they should exist at all is worth a discussion, but realistically Apple has been a proponent of them, sometimes spending upwards of a $B+ to get more of them with intent to use them offensively at times, and have.
Just a reminder that from time to time companies pay PR firms to attempt to massage online narratives through online forums, such as those held on popular websites or reddit. Called Astroturfing, it is designed to smear companies in a false narrative, in order to have an effect on media reporting, legal decisions and apply pressure to the target company. (Or in the reverse situation shout-down criticism of a country/company/other entity.)
In these circumstances you'll see the same basic talking points appear continuously (e.g. Rounded rectangles, Qualcomm patents), and a lack of intelligent or meaningful engagement of the topic such as stating a view without any evidence to support it, or the use of accounts that are either new or have a very low post count, with this you may also see highly infrequent posting or only posting in threads that also share other suspect users.
Another symptom of this behaviour is when low quality responses receive many "Like"'s or similar votes, in contrast to what usually would be received on such a site. The final (and somewhat obvious) symptom is that these accounts appear suddenly, and disappear just as quickly when the issue is resolved.
Sorry, but you know something is wrong with a system when someone can spend a couple of hours writing an intentionally broadly worded technology idea down on a piece of paper, send it to the patent office, and then later have that patent bought by a company which has deep pockets to go after companies which, you know, actually create products, and have that company get almost half a billion dollars for it. A few hours spent and someone gets half a billion dollars. What behaviour are we incentivizing here? Why actually do hard work and create things when you can get paid for doing next to nothing?
VirnetX is a spinoff of the former federal contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a company which developed security technology for Homeland Security and other federal agencies. All of the patents held by VirnetX were co-invented by VirtnetX's Founder and CTO, Dr. Robert Short. So to say that VirnetX is a patent troll and just bought this patent to go after Apple is just straight WRONG. Please do some research before you accuse!
Do your own homework - SAIC is not a former federal contractor, they are a current one. And it’s all they do now.
Apple is a global thief, Wait until they get hit with an additional $600 Million for Virnetx.
Hmmm. User joins forum July 9, posts general "Apple is a global thief" trolling comment about specific patent litigation. Would there be a VirnetX connection there?
VirnetX DID NOT create FaceTime or anything like it.
Apple wanted FaceTime to be a SECURE open standard.
VirnetX happened to have a vague patent about secure communications which forced Apple to use and PAY them AFTER the fact. Because Apple has to pay VirnetX for FaceTime it made less sense to make it an open standard. Why would Apple pay to allow Android/Windows users to use it?
This is why the patent system is broken. You can create any invention and someone from 10 years ago with a vague patent can sue you.
.....VirnetX happened to have a vague patent ......
Good god... you need to do some reading.
The "vague patent" is what DHS paid SAIC several hundred thousand dollars to develop.
The only thing I find remarkable about this whole thing - besides Apple's theft of technology - is that SAIC let the execs who formed VirnetX take the patents with them. But the courts also corrected that - making SAIC a co-beneficiary of the settlement.
I would agree it is very suspicious all these people jumping in to support VirnetX with long-winded , serious sounding arguments, and claiming to have personal knowledge of the situation then trying to paint VirnetX as the poor little kid being bullied by Apple. Astroturfing indeed.
Comments
So that I'm clear, I'm not defending VirnetX. I am expressly criticizing your quotes. They're inaccurate, devoid of any factual info, and just flat out wrong. Worse, instead of acknowledging that you may not know anything about this case or VirnetX, you double down with more fan fiction. Not a good look.
Many are jumping to conclusions based on information from the AUTHOR of this article! It takes MUCH more than one court opinion to paint the landscape.
VirnetX DID NOT create video chat/calling...AND, they don't claim to doing that! That's something that would be EASILY debunked.
For those who do not know, VirnetX's patented technology is a one- or no-click technology that creates instant security of your communications. That's the invention! Does Apple want their communication via iMessage, Facetime, VPN on Demand to be secure and simple? Of course they do! Apple's customers demand and expect that. How often do you hear Apple or Tim Cook grandstand about privacy and security that's incorporated within their solutions? Security and privacy are part of Apple's core principals.
Apple just so happened to adopted VirnetX's patented tech to accomplish their secure connection links...it's that simple. Then, Apple - like most margin conscious companies - did not want to license or pay. VirnetX got the full bully treatment for years and years and it's finally coming to a head now. It's really AMAZING that Apple was not able to bankrupt VHC during the process.
Don't be mad at VirnetX. Apple is stealing the tech...they simply do not want to pay for the invention. For folks to argue that "now you'll pay more for your iPhone, etc." is ludicrous! Inventors need to be compensated fair value for their inventions. Thanks for listening if you read this far.
If a patent claim depends on a software patent that describes an idea, rather than actual source code, then the claim is bogus.
This is why software patents shouldn’t even exist.
Do your own homework - SAIC is not a former federal contractor, they are a current one. And it’s all they do now.
One is the patent office itself who issued the patents and wants to nullify them
saying they were overbroad and anticipated by network standards committee
documents (RFCs) fleshing out end-to-end encryption. The PTAB authority
has domain-level experts.
The other system is the courts, who use different standards, and non-expert lay juries
including the ones attached to the infamous Eastern District of Texas who are easily
swayed by lawyers in the adversarial system.
The Supreme Court has commented that it's strange to have two systems, but
Congress designed it this way and only the legislative branch can try to straighten the
messy system out with new law. So, it's a turf war.
Meanwhile the security standards were implemented by different companies (including
Cisco, Apple, and Microsoft) in different ways. These companies rolled out actual
products, but VirnetX peddled the overbroad patent claims saying they were "first".
Dr. Short may have had some nifty implementation wrinkle, but VirnetX wants folks to
believe they invented end-to-end encryption, when what they do is basically implement
DNS lookups to secure domains ending in .scom. This is not stuff that appears as
novel in textbooks on network security, just a workman-like engineering effort
subject to multiple re-invention.
To add to the insult, VirnetX thinks their one improvement idea is worth multiple
hundreds of millions, or a significant percentage of sales. The iPhone utilizes literally
thousands of hacks -- Apple and the rest of the industry would pay this amount only
for complete bundles of thousands of patents from established cellphone technology
companies like Qualcomm and ye olde Motorola. So the issue of proper "apportionment" is
in flux. Adding to all that is the Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS Bank,
which since 2014 has provided a dim view of software patents in general.
Since VirnetX conned some patent clerk to accept broad language in their issuance
which may even be upheld by appeals courts, they may yet win on a technicality,
but it won't be because they invented *the* way to turn an iMessage from the color green
(unsecure SMS) to the color blue (a bit more secure, until backup-to-iCloud at least).
Love the narrative. Have you considered novels?
(as a current SAIC software engineer myself)
My my, this story has brought out the 1-post-wonders...aka astroturfers.
The key word in that phrase is "ideas" - an idea is not an implementation, and it's only implementations that receive legal protection. Apple has absolutely copied ideas that others have had, but has spent a great deal of effort improving each concept, simplifying and refining until the benefits are maximised and the drawbacks minimised. And other companies then copy the superficial features of Apple's implementations and claim to be "just as good."
I have no idea if Apple used the VirnetX technology, but this is why the judicial system exists - to analyse the complex situations and arrive at simple decisions. As Vr0513 says, for this many courts to find in favour of the claimant there must be a relatively substantial basis for the action.
Whether you and I believe they should exist at all is worth a discussion, but realistically Apple has been a proponent of them, sometimes spending upwards of a $B+ to get more of them with intent to use them offensively at times, and have.
In these circumstances you'll see the same basic talking points appear continuously (e.g. Rounded rectangles, Qualcomm patents), and a lack of intelligent or meaningful engagement of the topic such as stating a view without any evidence to support it, or the use of accounts that are either new or have a very low post count, with this you may also see highly infrequent posting or only posting in threads that also share other suspect users.
Another symptom of this behaviour is when low quality responses receive many "Like"'s or similar votes, in contrast to what usually would be received on such a site.
The final (and somewhat obvious) symptom is that these accounts appear suddenly, and disappear just as quickly when the issue is resolved.
VirnetX DID NOT create FaceTime or anything like it.
Apple wanted FaceTime to be a SECURE open standard.
VirnetX happened to have a vague patent about secure communications which forced Apple to use and PAY them AFTER the fact.
Because Apple has to pay VirnetX for FaceTime it made less sense to make it an open standard. Why would Apple pay to allow Android/Windows users to use it?
This is why the patent system is broken. You can create any invention and someone from 10 years ago with a vague patent can sue you.
The "vague patent" is what DHS paid SAIC several hundred thousand dollars to develop.
The only thing I find remarkable about this whole thing - besides Apple's theft of technology - is that SAIC let the execs who formed VirnetX take the patents with them. But the courts also corrected that - making SAIC a co-beneficiary of the settlement.