lookfornadrew

gatorguy said:

Something that stands out in Apple's response:
"Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 

...and of course several folks here won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms. 

I am just surprised that no one has taken you to task in leaving out a major element of this.

I would have expected that you would have at least made the attempt to be fair and indicate that just as in the Samsung case then the valuation of the verdict must also be treated the same in this case.

In other words, I am disappointed in you for not saying that VirnetX should get the same treatment as Apple VS Samsung.  At the end of the day the judgement should be roughly $1,347.18, after lawyer fees, just as Samsung whittled down the 84 billion they initially owed Apple.  (Amounts used are for entertainment purposes.)

I do not disagree with you that Apple can not have it both ways, but I am always surprised how you pick and choose when you throw drivel and detail only when it suits you.  Usually when you are defending the world against Apple you put in that extra effort.