VirnetX, currently embroiled in a patent dispute with Apple over FaceTime and iMessage, today asked the judge presiding over the case for additional damages and an injunction to block Apple's popular messaging services.
According to Law360, VirnetX argues that an injunction is appropriate because Apple's infringement on VirnetX's patents, which relate to virtual private networking (VPN) protocols, has caused irreparable harm to the company. The Nevada-based patent holding company also called Apple the "poster child" for unreasonable litigation tactics and asked the court to increase its damages award by at least $190 million.
/article-new/2016/01/virnetx.png?lossy)
At a post-trial hearing Wednesday, Texas technology company VirnetX argued that although an injunction blocking Apple's popular video chatting and messaging features, along with a virtual private network on demand feature, may seem like a harsh remedy, it is necessary because of the irreparable harm Apple's infringement caused the company.
Apple is currently appealing a February ruling that awarded VirnetX $625 million in damages, and VirnetX likely wants an injunction put in place to speed along the appeal process and force Apple into paying royalties. Apple has filed for a mistrial on the basis that VirnetX "blatantly misrepresented" the testimony of Apple's witnesses and used "arguments outside the evidence."
If an injunction is granted, Apple will be forced to shut down key features in Messages and FaceTime or find a workaround to avoid using functionality patented by VirnetX.
Top Rated Comments
How long has FaceTime and iMessage been out for? Six years?
What "irreparable" damage has been done to a company most people haven't even heard of until now?
Looks like a company that's ran and managed by a bunch of losers.
And yes, they do sell code libraries, as well as licenses.
Many of the shares are owned by the patent inventors themselves, who are the chief officers of VirnetX.
A larger chunk is owned by mutual funds investors. I think the amount of stock available on the open market is less than 50%, and that's all that could be bought easily by Apple. Not enough for a takeover.
Moreover, as soon as Apple bought more than 5%, they'd have to notify the SEC and state their intentions. Which would alert everyone and the stock price would surely skyrocket.
Not to mention that an attempted hostile takeover of a company that's successfully suing you, would probably set off alarms at the DOJ.
The fact that you, and the other posters who said this, have never heard of VirnetX is utterly meaningless to the case. All it does is point out that you don't work in the same area as SAIC. Ever heard of them?
Microsoft already settled with VirnetX... twice. For a total of around $223 million. As did NEC and Siemens and several others.
That makes it more difficult for Apple's lawyers to try to claim the patents are invalid.
I think some of the other companies you mentioned are also in their cross hairs.
"Your honor, this negotiation would go ever so much better for us if we had Apple by the balls. Can you please hand us Apple's balls on a silver platter?"
Translation:
"We want to be the spoiled-brat poster child for patent trolls, and we're gonna hold our breath until we turn blue."
Based on past experience, I'm gonna guess Apple's in the right here. The patent system was intended to give people an incentive to invent new things by granting them exclusive use of their new idea, before others are allowed to copy it. It is being used way too much in the software field for keeping anyone else from taking the obvious next step in many different areas. It was intended to keep people from copying other people's ideas, not to keep people from independently coming up with the same idea. And definitely not to allow folks to charge rent on obvious next step ideas simply by virtue of having filed the paperwork first.