VirnetX's $503 Million Patent Win Over Apple Vacated on Appeal in Mixed Result

Apple is so hard to defeat.

VirnetX are patent trolls, plain and simple. They do not use anything they have in their "patent portfolio" and simple sue to make money. East Texas is super friendly to them, which makes you wonder if there are kickbacks involved. Google, Apple and others have all been sued by them.

VirnetX are patent trolls, plain and simple. They do not use anything they have in their "patent portfolio" and simple sue to make money. East Texas is super friendly to them, which makes you wonder if there are kickbacks involved. Google, Apple and others have all been sued by them.

The purpose of a patent is to protect an invention. There’s no law requiring “use” of a patent. Most patents aren’t “used,” including the vast majority of Apple’s patents.

Such a requirement would be absurd, and it is unlikely that a “use” requirement would become law since it is both stupid and unconstitutional.
[automerge]1574444960[/automerge]

There will be no tears for the patent troll.

I hate patent trolls.... they seek out vaguely worded patents on half-baked methods that might describe some innovation and when somebody ACTUALLY INVENTS and CREATES something that is fully baked and actually works and provides something good the patent trolls dig through their piles of stale patents to find something vaguely similar to the wording in the patent, they dust off the patent and file a lawsuit. The justice system should impose penalties on these guys for stifling innovation.
[automerge]1574444493[/automerge]

Lots of opinions from armchair patent attorneys who are absolutely clueless about the patent system.

Enforcing a patent doesn’t “stifle innovation.” It forces innovation to get around existing patents. That is the purpose of the patent system.

And if you knew anything about patents, you would know that there is no such thing as a patent that is “vaguely worded.” Patent language is incredibly detailed and precise.

VirnetX are patent trolls, plain and simple. They do not use anything they have in their "patent portfolio" and simple sue to make money. East Texas is super friendly to them, which makes you wonder if there are kickbacks involved. Google, Apple and others have all been sued by them.

So if someone buys some property and doesn't build a building on the land, in your opinion they are a property troll? And apple is free to build on the land?

The purpose of a patent is to protect an invention. There’s no law requiring “use” of a patent. Most patents aren’t “used,” including the vast majority of Apple’s patents.

Such a requirement would be absurd, and it is unlikely that a “use” requirement would become law since it is both stupid and unconstitutional.
[automerge]1574444960[/automerge]


Lots of opinions from armchair patent attorneys who are absolutely clueless about the patent system.

Enforcing a patent doesn’t “stifle innovation.” It forces innovation to get around existing patents. That is the purpose of the patent system.

And if you knew anything about patents, you would know that there is no such thing as a patent that is “vaguely worded.” Patent language is incredibly detailed and precise.

I agree with the spirit of the patent system. But the patent system is being greatly abused in very real ways that do in fact stifle innovation. The spirit of the system is to protect inventors of all sizes. The reality is it's being used in an exploitative manner in many documented circumstances. Somewhat recently, Cloudflare did a great job not only standing up to one of these firms, but actively sought to invalidate all their patents. It's a good read:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/standing-up-to-a-dangerous-new-breed-of-patent-troll/

Samsung didn't copy the iPhone, the ruling in that case was about Samsung violating 2 or 3 patents which is no different than the ruling in this case.

Are you joking? They even copied 30-pin dock icon on chargers. They copied everything they were able to copy.

So if someone buys some property and doesn't build a building on the land, in your opinion they are a property troll? And apple is free to build on the land?

The purpose of a patent is to protect an invention. There’s no law requiring “use” of a patent. Most patents aren’t “used,” including the vast majority of Apple’s patents.

Such a requirement would be absurd, and it is unlikely that a “use” requirement would become law since it is both stupid and unconstitutional.
[automerge]1574444960[/automerge]


Lots of opinions from armchair patent attorneys who are absolutely clueless about the patent system.

Enforcing a patent doesn’t “stifle innovation.” It forces innovation to get around existing patents. That is the purpose of the patent system.

And if you knew anything about patents, you would know that there is no such thing as a patent that is “vaguely worded.” Patent language is incredibly detailed and precise.

In 2018, the city of Oakland, California and other cities in the East Bay passed ballot measures creating a vacant lot tax. This was put in place to incentivize development and punish people holding onto land for speculative purposes.

What if a similar law was put in place regarding patents? It would reward those actually developing the technology of each patent while punishing people that aren’t developing each patent. Undeveloped patents are like undeveloped vacant lots. If they can’t develop the patent and don’t want to be fined, they sell the patent to a company that can develop it.

It would force patent troll companies to dump all their patents very cheaply and sell to companies that would actually develop and utilize the patents.

Aside from being a patent troll, the original ruling also forced Apple to change the way FaceTime works (forces an intermediary server in the chain). This reduced the quality of FaceTime. Vomitx, I mean Virnetx “infringed” patent is so vaguely worded that it could apply to just about anything. Honestly, vagaries aside, it should never been granted as prior art existed.

If Samsung didn’t have to pay the entire original verdict for copying the iPhone, Apple sure as hell shouldn’t have to pay the original verdict for this baloney lawsuit.

And no, I’m not going to continue a conversation about whether or not Samsung copied the iPhone.

but no one, not even the staunchest troll supporter, could successfully argue that sitting on unused patents to poach settlements & verdicts was the original point of patents.

Uh, yes I can. Not the "sitting" part, because I'm really not sure what you mean and the doctrine of laches and equitable estoppel prohibits a patent owner from warehousing patents and not sueing when they know of potential infringement.

But the original point of patents includes patents being transferable assets that can be enforced by new owners. The system of patents only works if patent have value. Patents have value if they can be bought and sold on a marketplace. Patents have value on said marketplace if the buyer, new owner, can find licensees to pay for a license. Licensees will only pay a license if they are compelled through threat of litigation.

I'm not a "troll" supporter, but I think the term "patent troll" is used WAY too broadly these days to basically include all plaintiffs. The companies that actually abuse patents are actually very very rare. VirnetX is not a troll.

If Samsung didn’t have to pay the entire original verdict for copying the iPhone, Apple sure as hell shouldn’t have to pay the original verdict for this baloney lawsuit.

And no, I’m not going to continue a conversation about whether or not Samsung copied the iPhone.

Samsung didn't copy the iPhone, the ruling in that case was about Samsung violating 2 or 3 patents which is no different than the ruling in this case.