carnegie

So here are the 5 trademark registrations Apple cites. They all use the classic Apple logo, either in black or as an outline.

https://search.patentstyret.no/Trademark/201313739/0868666?searchId=1383116&caseIndex=975
https://search.patentstyret.no/Trademark/200804807/0957465?searchId=1383116&caseIndex=897
https://search.patentstyret.no/Trademark/200814737/0982228?searchId=1383116&caseIndex=880
https://search.patentstyret.no/Trademark/201803850/1394107?searchId=1383116&caseIndex=448
https://search.patentstyret.no/Trademark/200202638/217659?searchId=1383116&caseIndex=314

I don’t see where the objected-to mark (registration) is likely to be confused with them.

I wonder if this is more about trying to prevent others from registering marks which might make it more difficult for Apple to use different marks in the future, rather than really being about the potential for confusion with the marks Apple already uses. Apple has hundreds of registered trademarks which cover, e.g., icons they use for apps and as graphical representations of device features.

From Apple’s perspective it would be good to leave future design options (for, e.g., app icons) as open as possible. But it doesn’t - or shouldn’t - get to limit others that way. If someone else has a valid trademark they’re using, then they should get to register it (for what that’s worth). If it means that Apple can’t later use a design which it might have otherwise used (because Apple’s mark might be confused with an already-in-use mark), then that’s life.

To be clear, Apple isn’t asserting its trademark rights against someone else’s use of a mark. It isn’t, e.g., suing them for trademark infringement. It’s trying to prevent them from having their own mark registered, i.e. it’s trying to get their recent registration revoked.

People generally can't be held liable (e.g., through a civil action) for (negligent) omissions which lead to harm suffered by others. But there are exceptions to that general rule.

I don't know all the details of this situation, and he's in Germany so applicable principles might be very different, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he could face civil liability if he didn't take reasonable action (e.g. revealing details of the exploit to Apple) to mitigate the risk of harm to others. Again, the general rule would protect him from such liability. But I can think of exceptions which could possibly apply in this case. So it's possible - though I don't mean to suggest likely, I just don't know enough to make such an assessment - that he's now been made aware that he could face civil liability if he doesn't disclose the details of the exploit to Apple and, as a result of Apple not being able to address the problem as quickly, third parties are harmed.

Brahman said:

carnegie said:

Brahman said:

Having followed these series of VHC v. Apple cases for 8 years and looked at all documents in these cases it has been shown, through Apple's own in house emails, through hours of testimony, and through four trials that, all of which ruled against Apple, that Apple intentionally copied Virnetx's patents.  When Apple attempted a "work around" of the patent, customers complained so loud and so long that Apple was forced to go back and re-use the Virnetx patent.  I believe some individuals no longer have the so called, "brainpower, attention span, or will" (quoted from Chasm) to allow individuals to protect their own IP and not allow a patent pirate to steal it.  East Texas, West Texas, North Texas, North Dakota, it does not matter where the case is brought.  Right is right, and theft is theft.

All of the claims which Apple was found to have infringed have been invalidated by the PTAB.

From the '135 patent.
From the '151 patent.
From the '211 patent.
From the '504 patent.

And verified once again by the CAFC 18-1197, which overrules the Obama's PTAB.  Good luck with your half truths.

One of the VirnetX v Apple decisions (i.e. the 417 decision from the ED of TX) was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, yes. I didn't suggest otherwise. I'm familiar with the Rule 36 order issued in January for the 2018-1197 case you refer to. (The appeal of the 855 decision from the same ED court hasn't even been argued yet.)

But the Federal Circuit has not overruled the PTAB decisions which I linked to. It might, of course. Two of them have already been argued before the Federal Circuit. But, at best (from VirnetX's perspective), those decisions will be remanded for reconsideration. Judge Moore made it clear during oral argument that the Federal Circuit was not going to reverse those decisions.

I spoke no half truths. I didn't say anything about the district court decisions. I noted that all of the claims at issue have been invalidated. Even if those findings of un-patentability are ultimately reversed, they speak to the reasonableness of Apple's position.

Has the DOJ filed criminal charges that weren't reported on? Or did I miss such reporting?

Because the SEC can't bring criminal charges and Mr. Levoff wouldn't have been in jail (or under threat of jail) in connection with the charges that the SEC brought.


EDIT: Yes. The DOJ brought criminal charges the same day that the SEC brought civil charges. I hadn't seen that reported anywhere.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/reuters-america-update-2-berkshire-trims-apple-stake-adds-suncor-and-red-hat-exits-oracle.html

"One of the managers other than Warren had a position in Apple and sold part of it in order to make an unrelated purchase," Buffett's assistant Debbie Bosanek said in an email. "None of the shares under Warren's direction have ever been sold."