19 ms·

Apple Ordered to Pay $625M to Patent Troll in FaceTime Lawsuit

176 points by arbuge 11y ago

Cuuugi 11y ago
I don't understand. If "all four of VirnetX’s patents have been found invalid by the patent office" as Apple claims, why hasn't the case been dismissed?
- sageikosa 11y ago
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/jury-apple-must-pay-626-million-to-patent-troll-virnetx/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/jury-apple-must-p... "East Texas Jury"...
  - bbarn 11y ago
    I don't get this. Is there some paid off official there? Different standards? Why is it such a great place to win patent troll suits - which seem to get overturned in higher courts? Is the idea that a win there will stop the defendant from trying to appeal?
    - brianwawok 11y ago
      https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-go-texas-its-not-bbq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-g... > But why do patent plaintiffs, especially trolls, see it as such a favorable forum? Partly, the district's relatively rapid litigation timetable can put pressure on defendants to settle. But other local practices in the Eastern District also favor patentees. And, in our view, they do so in a way that is inconsistent with the governing Federal Rules, and work to mask the consistent refusal by the courts in the Eastern District to end meritless cases before trial.
      - MCRed 11y ago
        > work to mask the consistent refusal by the courts in the Eastern District to end meritless cases before trial. More trials should mean more money for lawyers in the area, judges, ancillary people like stenographers and clerks.
        wlesieutre 11y ago
        And hotels and restaurants and anything else that travelers use while in town for lawsuits. It's like a tourism business except instead of being a nice place that people want to go, you drag them there with $625M blackmail. The people on these juries know that if they stop being a haven for patent trolls, the cash cow goes away.
        st3v3r 11y ago
        I'm 75-90% sure federal judges are on salary, and are not paid by the case. At least I hope this is so.
        DannyBee 11y ago
        Federal judges are salaried and appointed for life except in cases of impeachment.
        brianwawok 11y ago
        But the number of judges is based on caseload. If they changed something so caseload fell by 75%, do you think some judges might lose their job?
        schoen 11y ago
        Nope, not in the Federal court system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge#Tenure_and_salary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge#Te... No Federal judge has ever been fired due to a reduction in the number of positions on the judge's court. (It's quite possible that a decreased caseload could result in fewer new judicial confirmations, but that affects would-be judges, not presently-serving judges.)
    - Retric 11y ago
      Systemic corruption. The area benefits from having lot's of Patent cases.
      - sesutton 11y ago
        I don't think it's a coincidence there is that there is a ice skating rink right in front of the courthouse in Marshall, Texas with giant Samsung logos all over it (relevant John Oliver clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA#t=7m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA#t=7m53s) .
      - rms_returns 11y ago
        Then why doesn't your White House or Obama do something about it? (non-US citizen here).
        pnathan 11y ago
        The Presidential aka executive branch does not have that kind of direct authority in the United States. At best, the executive can start a criminal investigation, which case must be made before the court branch; the laws that were broken were set by the legislative branch. Courts in the US are given an extremely high degree of independence, in the goal of limiting corruption.
        rms_returns 11y ago
        > Courts in the US are given an extremely high degree of independence, in the goal of limiting corruption. And exactly the opposite ended up happening in this case, isn't it? Corruption is a world-wide problem, but I don't know how widespread it is in developed countries. And its the same problem, people sitting at the top don't have authority to curb the ground-level corruption. Here in India at least, the government has started implementing something called Lokpal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal It is an agency which works at the ground-level to curb the corruption both in the private and public sectors (and also the ministry). A question arose, however, that what happens if the Lokpal people itself went corrupt? And that's why the concept of decentralization was introduced. The central Indian agency, CBI can check the corruption in Lokpal, and of course, the courts have authority over both CBI and Lokpal. Thus, decentralization is at least, the present way of stopping corruption here.
    - rasz_pl 11y ago
      Corruption? in a place with Samsung sponsored ice skating ring in the middle of a desert? never!
      - pascalmemories 11y ago
        You beat me to bringing that one up ! Indeed, it's been a huge bonanza for the local residents as big corporations have rolled into town and spent millions on PR (often as close to the courthouse as they can get). Everyone in town is courted (forgive the pun) to try and see corporations in the best possible light, just in case they turn up on a jury in a case against $BIGCORP at a later date. <humor>It's the American Way.</humor>
      - ssmoot 11y ago
        Maybe interesting trivia: East Texas is actually really green: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Marshall,+TX//@32.4867717,-98.8823919,1696368m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x8636f5dfa8038ca7:0x58332058355464a1!2m2!1d-94.3674184!2d32.5448714!1m0!3e0 https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Marshall,+TX//@32.4867717,-9... Great place for camping (45 minutes north-west near Gilmer, TX has an awesome OHV aka off-roading park). It's also got fairly mild weather (though doesn't freeze as often as I would've expected): http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/gilmer/texas/united-states/ustx0517 http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/gilmer/texas/united-sta... Anyways, no pro-Marshall or anything. The idea of East Texas being a poor-ish "backwater" isn't far off the mark. But if you like nature and goofin' off, it's a real nice place to do it.
    - jahewson 11y ago
      It's the judges and the court - somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US. This is a part of the country which has very little, so big corporations fighting patent cases bring a lot of money into the area and prestige to a court which otherwise would be in a backwater. It's a federal court, so the same laws apply as anywhere else, but there's enough wiggle room in the way those laws are written to allow this kind of "bad faith" interpretation. The solution is for congress to tighten up the laws, but that won't happen anytime soon. The idea isn't just that a win there will discourage an appeal, but that the court will hear cases that most other courts would dismiss out of hand based on obvious prior art, vague claims, or USPTO investigation results. So the defendant is tied up in a court case, which includes an expensive jury trial. Worse still, the jury is so biased that they're all but guaranteed to loose the case. Most savvy defendents would choose to settle in that situation - which is all the patent-holder actually wants.
      - pc86 11y ago
        Wow. > somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US. Different courts form slightly different interpretations. There's a reason that the 2nd Circuit is the most liberal court. This court happens to be the most pro-plaintiff patent court you can find. It's not surprising the plaintiffs file there. > This is a part of the country which has very little Have you ever been there? > so big corporations fighting patent cases bring a lot of money into the area and prestige to a court which otherwise would be in a backwater. Do you think Apple fighting a court case floods money down the street like a river? > the jury is so biased Make whatever claims you want about the court, but if as you claim this area is a backwater with nothing going for it, how exactly is the local populace educated enough about the finer points of patent litigation to be biased? This is a stupid decision but the mental gymnastics you're going through to try to make it fault of the area is impressive.
        freehunter 11y ago
        >Do you think Apple fighting a court case floods money down the street like a river? Yes. Lawyers have to eat, and they get paid enough to eat well. They need a place to stay, and they get paid enough to stay at a nice hotel. They need coffee, they need an airport, they need a rental car that needs gas. Your argument is that having people come to your city doesn't add to the local economy, but the fact that whole cities are built on tourism proves otherwise.
    - gobakhan 11y ago
      NPR: This American Life did an excellent episode about patent trolls where they cover east Texas and what it is about it that makes it so lucrative to file the suit there. Here is the episode transcript: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/t... The audio of the show can be listened to there as well. Apologies on not giving a summary. I normally would, but it has been a while since I listened to it and I don't want to misrepresent it.
- Oletros 11y ago
  I have not found any information about those invalidations.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  Here's a real answer (unlike the other "corruption" and "blah blah blah" answers): First, note that the federal circuit has ruled on these patents before, and upheld them. http://patentlyo.com/media/2014/09/Virnetx-v-Cisco.pdf http://patentlyo.com/media/2014/09/Virnetx-v-Cisco.pdf Apple conveniently leaves this part out. (i think it's a BS ruling, but it is a final appeals court ruling on the validity of the patents). As for the PTO finding them invalid: If you look at the file wrappers of these patents, you will see what apple means is "someone has requested review of these patents by the PTO, and they have initially been found invalid". (Apple's request to review validity was in fact, denied) Go to http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair Enter the patent numbers Click "image file wrapper". So they haven't "been found invalid", instead, they are going to trial before the PTAB to see whether they are invalid. Note: On a number of these patents, Apple's review requests have been denied a number of times before someone else's review request was granted
  - piyush_soni 11y ago
    So as usual, Apple is lying/misleading people here. At least 'technically'.
    - calt 11y ago
      > So as usual, Apple is lying/misleading people here. At least 'technically'. No. Apple are arguing that the patents are invalid. They aren't sayin they have been found invalid already. The TechCrunch article said "All four of VirnetX’s patents have been found invalid by the patent office"
      - piyush_soni 11y ago
        >> They aren't sayin they have been found invalid already .. They are saying exactly that, at least according to their press statement.
        pc86 11y ago
        It's legal posturing.
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  Exactly what I was going to ask.
mariusz79 11y ago
One patent troll has to pay another patent troll.. Good.
- mcherm 11y ago
  Perhaps apple ABUSES patents (that's a different discussion I do not want to get into), but I prefer to reserve the term "patent troll" for those individuals or organizations that do not actually perform invention nor manufacture, sales and marketing of actual products.
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    That's a little bit too narrow. There are lots of companies out there that manufacture products but derive a large percentage of their revenue from patents. For example, the chips that Qualcomm makes have been described by some as a loss leader to hide and justify their very lucrative patent licensing business.
  - mc808 11y ago
    That doesn't seem like a very useful distinction. Suppose new patent troll legislation comes along that would prevent enforcing a patent that isn't actively being used or developed (similar to trademarks). The trolls would just produce a cheap gizmo that depends on the patent in some way, and then blame the lack of sales on patent infringement. They'd colloquially still be called "trolls" based on a subjective judgment that they aren't really serious about selling the gizmo. When someone calls Apple et al. a patent troll, I think it's from the perception that they 1) apply for overly broad or obvious patents, and 2) enforce the patents offensively. Also a very subjective definition, but it doesn't seem any worse than arbitrary "uses/plans to use" criteria.
  - piyush_soni 11y ago
    I use that term for companies judging from how useless the patent they are defending is. Like "slide to unlock", "rounded rectangles of the device" etc.
- ReAzem 11y ago
SCHiM 11y ago
Ugh, disgusting. Think of how much damage that troll will now be able to wreak. With that kind of money it can buy all sorts of other patents and start the whole progress over again.
- ethbro 11y ago
  What we really need are patent co-ops. The problem as I see it is: patents exist to allow innovators to get paid for their inventions (setting aside the USPTO not being able to do its job correctly due to under-funding and granting bad patents), patents therefore have a monetary value, however that monetary value in fact scales with the monetary resources of the company it's held by (i.e. small companies cannot legally afford to enforce patent claims against behemoths that decide to fight), therefore there is a market incentive to create patent trolls (which increase the value of all patents by pooling them and amortizing prosecution cost/risk over a larger number of patents). It would seem like if you instead pooled patents in a co-op arrangement, retaining ownership by their original creators, but pooling them with others for efficiency / risk purposes and to obtain the necessary scale for optimal enforcement. Then work out some amiable proceed-sharing method on the backend. Win/win, and reducing the incentive for patent troll companies by providing an alternative. (Caveat: bad patents still need to be fixed at the USPTO source via additional funding / subject matter expert examiner requirements) Is something like this at all feasible legally? Or does something prevent the batching together of patents from various actual owners under a single legal proceeding?
  - Retric 11y ago
    The problem is defecting becomes valuable. If I have a great patent, then selling to a troll let's me 'cash out' without needing actual customers.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      Defecting being an optimal play is something that could be addressed via co-op rules. But that's my entire point. Currently, selling out to a patent troll (ignoring patents obtained from bankruptcies) is honestly the smartest move if you're a small company with a great patent. We should give such a company more socially-beneficial alternatives.
dangerlibrary 11y ago
Interestingly, the four patents in question cover ways of initiating a secure connection via DNS - nothing about video transcoding or low latency communication, which was my first guess. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6502135.PN.&OS=PN/6502135&RS=PN/6502135 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7418504.PN.&OS=PN/7418504&RS=PN/7418504 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7921211.PN.&OS=PN/7921211&RS=PN/7921211 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7490151.PN.&OS=PN/7490151&RS=PN/7490151 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...
robotnoises 11y ago
From the VirnetX website: http://virnetx.com/company/virnetx-promise/ http://virnetx.com/company/virnetx-promise/ "Cutting-edge secure communications technology is only one of the essential elements of our products – another is integrity. ..." lol, what products?
- josaka 11y ago
  FWIW, it looks like they acquired these patents from a company that actually does make something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Applications_International_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Applications_Internati... This is speculative, but these patent filings were probably part of a patent filing strategy that helped justify the employment of a what was likely a decent number of engineers by the original owner.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    I really can't say I care about those jobs. The engineers would have more than likely found other jobs with actual companies that actually do stuff.
    - josaka 11y ago
      According to the inventors' employer's website at the time of filing of these patents: "Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a Fortune 500 company, is the largest employee-owned research and engineering company in the nation. We provide information technology and systems integration solutions worldwide." https://web.archive.org/web/20000511195702/http://www.saic.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20000511195702/http://www.saic.c...
- piyush_soni 11y ago
  http://virnetx.com/virnetxs-gabriel-collaboration-suite-now-available-major-operating-systems/ http://virnetx.com/virnetxs-gabriel-collaboration-suite-now-... Not sure if they're actually out there, but at least their website lists one product.
- 11y ago
pmarreck 11y ago
@GabrielSecure is their (inactive, what a surprise) Twitter account, FYI.
Oletros 11y ago
And another case with software patents and a patent troll, how much damages they have done
kbenzle 11y ago
If this is the kind of impetus needed to set off patent reform, all the better. I would argue against the "Troll" label, it is a legal firm doing its job very well. The Troll bashers I assume would prefer the companies to just leave this $ to the infringes? Why? Is it somehow immoral to use the legal system for financial gain? No, it is not, not at all. I'd say good on them for finding the loop holes and driving their $600M lorrie straight through it to the bank. Don't say fuck the trolls, fuck the patent system in the US which Apple has used to the detriment of many young companies too, they are all playing the game.
- replies_to_all 11y ago
  Yep, if the "trolls" are trolls so is Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google, all of them, are we saying the US is made up of all trolls?
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    "Trolls" don't do anything with the patents other than sue people. You'd be pretty hard pressed to say those companies don't use their patents.
- dangerlibrary 11y ago
  Typically the 'troll' label is applied to companies like Virnetx because they produce nothing of value. They are strictly rent seekers - net negative economic value creators. "It's a massive verdict for VirnetX, a company that has no products and makes its money solely through patent litigation."
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Even that's selectively looking at the facts though. At some point they paid for those patents, and that theoretically put money in the pockets of creators, incentivizing them to create more. That said, to my eyes it's clearly a subversion of the intended purpose of patents, and is societally damaging, so I see no problem with derogatory labeling of this behavior and those that take part in it. It's unfortunate, but it's an important part of getting consensus in a short time frame with a large populace.
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
I have a modest proposal to get rid of these patent trolls and these ridiculous settlements that typically are decided by a jury of West Texas farmers. Patents ought to be designated a non-transferrable property. Inventors may create a trust that receives patent revenues, and direct those revenues to any entity they please (their own company, their heirs, another company, a charity, etc.) but would not be able to actually sell the patents to any other company or individual. Then, patent holding companies would evaporate, and the revenue for ideas would go to those who created the ideas. If a company created many patents, say, Kodak, then goes out of business, it would leave behind a trust that would continue to receive revenue on those patents until they expired. If you choose not to, you can forfeit the patent and then it becomes public domain.
- ant6n 11y ago
  So the patent trolls will simply sue on behalf of the owner and collect a 90% 'fee'.
- Oletros 11y ago
  Are you saying that companies can't bought other companies and take ownership of their patents?
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Oh well, I guess that's the loophole in my proposal. But at least, a patent troll would have to buy an entire corporation rather than just its patent portfolio. Kodak, again: if let us say Toshiba wants Kodak's imaging patents, they'd have to buy Kodak in its entirety. At least this would raise the bar to acquiring patents.
    - jp_rider 11y ago
      I actually sort of like your proposal. Don't individuals have to file for patents and then employees buy it off them for like $1? If this is true, existing patents would fall into this loophole, but new patents could never end up in corporate hands since you can't buy a person. Another issue I see is that patent trolls could just represent patent owners in litigation and charge high legal fees (or sign a contract that they receive all revenue for the patent).
riskneural 11y ago
Makes Google's UK tax bill of 130 mill seem small.
- collyw 11y ago
  It was small compared to their profits.
mythz 11y ago
Now this Patent Troll has even more ammunition to shakedown companies in future whilst encouraging creation of even more low-life leeching NPE's. Clearly Patent Trolls adds negative value, harms progress and increases cost of business - how long will this legal racketeering be allowed to continue?
- replies_to_all 11y ago
  Or maybe they act to keep the big players honest?
  - mythz 11y ago
    The big players can afford it, their existence just adds a barrier to entry and causes more harm to young/unestablished companies.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    If these were companies that actually did something, instead of waste everyone's time and resources, you'd have a point.
- JackFr 11y ago
  > low-life leeching NPE's NullPointerExceptions?
  - mythz 11y ago
    Non Practicing Entities - i.e. trolls.
    - JackFr 11y ago
      Damn. Cause if someone patented NullPointerExceptions they'd sure be rich.
      - jkyle 11y ago
        Done. [1] 1. http://www.google.co.ug/patents/EP0881577A2?cl=fi http://www.google.co.ug/patents/EP0881577A2?cl=fi
acomjean 11y ago
is it my or does 625 million seem a tad excessive for a feature of the phone that isn't totally central and probably is used by maybe 20% of phone users? Apple has sold maybe 800million iOS devices. Say 400 million that support FaceTime. $1.50 per device. wow. Or 625,000,000/ 14 employees.
comex 11y ago
Almost as much as the $1B Apple was originally supposed to win from Samsung for equally silly patents. (It's since been slashed down to a tenth of that, but still.) Is it too much to say "live by the sword, die by the sword"?
- rootusrootus 11y ago
  What would you do if you were Apple? Would VirnetX have refused to go after them just because Apple had not gone after Samsung for "equally silly" patents? Seems like what you really want to say is "don't hate the player, hate the game."
  - shawabawa3 11y ago
    > Seems like what you really want to say is "don't hate the player, hate the game." More like, "Hate the game, and hate the player for playing it" Instead of everyone joining in the patent suing racket, these big players should be lobbying for the laws to be changed
    - djrogers 11y ago
      >Instead of everyone joining in the patent suing racket, these big players should be lobbying for the laws to be changed Except you have to do both - if you ignore the racket you are much more exposed to lawsuits. Patents are used defensively between companies like Apple and Samsung, and if you give up that defense while trying to change the laws you are severely exposed. Tough balancing act.. The flip side of it is that I don't think we're likely to see these laws change until the current 2 party corrupt system is torn apart. Congress is completely bought and sold on both sides of the aisle and their owners like the current system (more laws = more lawsuits = more $$ for lawyers).
      - linkregister 11y ago
        > Except you have to do both - if you ignore the racket you are much more exposed to lawsuits Check this out: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/defensive-patent-license-and-other-ways-beat-patent-system https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/defensive-patent-licen... Google and Facebook are playing as well: https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-ou..., https://www.google.com/patents/licensing/dpl/non-sticky/ https://www.google.com/patents/licensing/dpl/non-sticky/ It should be mentioned that both of the above corporations grant this patent license for use and modification of the software they have open sourced.
kelukelugames 11y ago
It's not over yet. Apple will appeal.
DannyBee 11y ago
So, virnet is a spin-off of SAIC. SAIC is definitely not a troll (though i could believe virnet is :P).
bitmapbrother 11y ago
I must say it's rather funny that Apple is basically passing along their Samsung patent money onto VirnetX.
wnevets 11y ago
A patent troll getting patent trolled, great.
chrisgd 11y ago
I should totally be a patent troll. Are there any MOOCs that cover this?
- Jemmeh 11y ago
  A MOOC to be a mook.
Animats 11y ago
If they won in court against Apple, they're not a "patent troll". They invented something which Apple copied. Apple has patented, and tried to enforce, the claim that they have the exclusive right to devices with a screen on the front and round corners.[1] They lost, but they're still litigating that. [1] http://fortune.com/2015/08/19/apple-patents-rounded-corners/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/19/apple-patents-rounded-corners/
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  Not at all. With how widely known patent trolling is, there's nothing inherent in a patent dispute victory that signifies the patent protects a valid invention and that the party suing isn't a troll. All it means is that the troll succeeded in their trolling. That's equivalent to suggesting that if a person was found not guilty of a crime they actually committed, they didn't actually commit it. The legal system does not adjudicate reality. PS: The rounded corners patent is equally offensive as those bought up and profited from by trolls in the courts. Patents don't intrinsically signify authentic invention. They should, but there are far too many counter examples to rely on such a claim.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  A company patented the concept of making toast well after toasters were on the market. Another patented recurring payments of online service long after that was normal. Another guy modified a patent to cover podcasting after podcasting was invented and in use. Point being, something being patented != something being invented. It just means examiners agreed with the claims of a piece of paper then turned that into a piece of intellectual property. The wins then mean courts agreed that claims in that property match some other product to some degree. Neither means someone copied someone. Whether that's true varies on a case by case basis. I think it's telling that many defendants develop their own, "infringing" tech without ever hearing of the plantiff or their patents. Hard to copy what you don't know exists. In science, we call it independent invention but patent system makes that impossible. Plus, on software patents, what programmers have you met who comb through patent databases to solve their day-to-day problems? I've never met one. Concluding, patents are legal pronouncements that may or may not cover inventions. Rulings on copying may be right or bullshit. Copying is usually unknowing or independent invention because nobody solves problems with patent databases in our industry. I remember running into maybe 3 or 4 worth looking at in Google search solving a problem. One was novel but others patented ideas already in products or Comp Sci literature. Well-known ideas that were foundational to product success. (sighs)
WalterBright 11y ago
The large companies seem to be constantly in patent battles, often with each other, both as plaintiffs and as defendants. They win some and lose some. Since this is unproductive activity, due to lawyer bills and the diversion of attention from their core businesses, it simply must be a net loss for those players. Why don't they call each other up, declare a truce, and cooperate in lobbying Congress to fix (i.e. largely repeal) patent law?
- iraphael 11y ago
  Truces are declared to some extent with patent pools. Not a lot of action towards lobbying Congress for patent reform, though (which is very needed). http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studi...
- bobbles 11y ago
  Doesn't work when the companies in question exist purely for patent lawsuits
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    Right, but if Google Apple Microsoft Amazon etc. get together and lobby to end software patents, they can overwhelm the trolls.
- iwwr 11y ago
  Large companies are not endangered by patent lawsuits, not even from trolls. They have enough power to fight most suits and even when they lose it's not a big sting. Patent portfolios allow the giants to consolidate their position and defend against competition from smaller companies. Economies of scale in terms of lawyers is what small companies don't have and giants aren't shy about threatening smaller players who may pose a threat (although they usually just buy them out).
profeta 11y ago
considering that apple is in itself a patent troll of the worst kind (buying companies with interesting patents, such as FingerWorks, and forbiding any and all licensing on those patents) i'm not even mad with this news.
- cloverich 11y ago
  That doesn't fit my understanding of Patent troll -- buying Patents, not making anything, then blanket suing companies to try and make a living. Not defending Apple's behavior as such, but it seems to not be the same thing.
azth 11y ago
Why doesn't the legal system immediately dismiss such lawsuits by the patent trolls? It is obvious what they're after.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- notacoward 11y ago
  Because courts adjudicate laws, and it's the laws that are broken. The alternative would be courts that just make up their own versions of the law, which has its own problems. Among those is the tendency for patent trolls (or their equivalents in other kinds of cases) bringing suit in whichever jurisdiction is friendliest to them, and there's entirely too much of that going on in East Texas already.
mankash666 11y ago
In light of Apple patent trolling the Samsungs & HTCs on curved rectangles, is this just karma?

176 points by arbuge 11y ago

I don't understand. If "all four of VirnetX’s patents have been found invalid by the patent office" as Apple claims, why hasn't the case been dismissed?

sageikosa 11y ago
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/jury-apple-must-pay-626-million-to-patent-troll-virnetx/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/jury-apple-must-p... "East Texas Jury"...
- bbarn 11y ago
  I don't get this. Is there some paid off official there? Different standards? Why is it such a great place to win patent troll suits - which seem to get overturned in higher courts? Is the idea that a win there will stop the defendant from trying to appeal?
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-go-texas-its-not-bbq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-g... > But why do patent plaintiffs, especially trolls, see it as such a favorable forum? Partly, the district's relatively rapid litigation timetable can put pressure on defendants to settle. But other local practices in the Eastern District also favor patentees. And, in our view, they do so in a way that is inconsistent with the governing Federal Rules, and work to mask the consistent refusal by the courts in the Eastern District to end meritless cases before trial.
    - MCRed 11y ago
      > work to mask the consistent refusal by the courts in the Eastern District to end meritless cases before trial. More trials should mean more money for lawyers in the area, judges, ancillary people like stenographers and clerks.
      - wlesieutre 11y ago
        And hotels and restaurants and anything else that travelers use while in town for lawsuits. It's like a tourism business except instead of being a nice place that people want to go, you drag them there with $625M blackmail. The people on these juries know that if they stop being a haven for patent trolls, the cash cow goes away.
      - st3v3r 11y ago
        I'm 75-90% sure federal judges are on salary, and are not paid by the case. At least I hope this is so.
        DannyBee 11y ago
        Federal judges are salaried and appointed for life except in cases of impeachment.
        brianwawok 11y ago
        But the number of judges is based on caseload. If they changed something so caseload fell by 75%, do you think some judges might lose their job?
        schoen 11y ago
        Nope, not in the Federal court system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge#Tenure_and_salary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge#Te... No Federal judge has ever been fired due to a reduction in the number of positions on the judge's court. (It's quite possible that a decreased caseload could result in fewer new judicial confirmations, but that affects would-be judges, not presently-serving judges.)
  - Retric 11y ago
    Systemic corruption. The area benefits from having lot's of Patent cases.
    - sesutton 11y ago
      I don't think it's a coincidence there is that there is a ice skating rink right in front of the courthouse in Marshall, Texas with giant Samsung logos all over it (relevant John Oliver clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA#t=7m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA#t=7m53s) .
    - rms_returns 11y ago
      Then why doesn't your White House or Obama do something about it? (non-US citizen here).
      - pnathan 11y ago
        The Presidential aka executive branch does not have that kind of direct authority in the United States. At best, the executive can start a criminal investigation, which case must be made before the court branch; the laws that were broken were set by the legislative branch. Courts in the US are given an extremely high degree of independence, in the goal of limiting corruption.
        rms_returns 11y ago
        > Courts in the US are given an extremely high degree of independence, in the goal of limiting corruption. And exactly the opposite ended up happening in this case, isn't it? Corruption is a world-wide problem, but I don't know how widespread it is in developed countries. And its the same problem, people sitting at the top don't have authority to curb the ground-level corruption. Here in India at least, the government has started implementing something called Lokpal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal It is an agency which works at the ground-level to curb the corruption both in the private and public sectors (and also the ministry). A question arose, however, that what happens if the Lokpal people itself went corrupt? And that's why the concept of decentralization was introduced. The central Indian agency, CBI can check the corruption in Lokpal, and of course, the courts have authority over both CBI and Lokpal. Thus, decentralization is at least, the present way of stopping corruption here.
  - rasz_pl 11y ago
    Corruption? in a place with Samsung sponsored ice skating ring in the middle of a desert? never!
    - pascalmemories 11y ago
      You beat me to bringing that one up ! Indeed, it's been a huge bonanza for the local residents as big corporations have rolled into town and spent millions on PR (often as close to the courthouse as they can get). Everyone in town is courted (forgive the pun) to try and see corporations in the best possible light, just in case they turn up on a jury in a case against $BIGCORP at a later date. <humor>It's the American Way.</humor>
    - ssmoot 11y ago
      Maybe interesting trivia: East Texas is actually really green: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Marshall,+TX//@32.4867717,-98.8823919,1696368m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x8636f5dfa8038ca7:0x58332058355464a1!2m2!1d-94.3674184!2d32.5448714!1m0!3e0 https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Marshall,+TX//@32.4867717,-9... Great place for camping (45 minutes north-west near Gilmer, TX has an awesome OHV aka off-roading park). It's also got fairly mild weather (though doesn't freeze as often as I would've expected): http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/gilmer/texas/united-states/ustx0517 http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/gilmer/texas/united-sta... Anyways, no pro-Marshall or anything. The idea of East Texas being a poor-ish "backwater" isn't far off the mark. But if you like nature and goofin' off, it's a real nice place to do it.
  - jahewson 11y ago
    It's the judges and the court - somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US. This is a part of the country which has very little, so big corporations fighting patent cases bring a lot of money into the area and prestige to a court which otherwise would be in a backwater. It's a federal court, so the same laws apply as anywhere else, but there's enough wiggle room in the way those laws are written to allow this kind of "bad faith" interpretation. The solution is for congress to tighten up the laws, but that won't happen anytime soon. The idea isn't just that a win there will discourage an appeal, but that the court will hear cases that most other courts would dismiss out of hand based on obvious prior art, vague claims, or USPTO investigation results. So the defendant is tied up in a court case, which includes an expensive jury trial. Worse still, the jury is so biased that they're all but guaranteed to loose the case. Most savvy defendents would choose to settle in that situation - which is all the patent-holder actually wants.
    - pc86 11y ago
      Wow. > somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US. Different courts form slightly different interpretations. There's a reason that the 2nd Circuit is the most liberal court. This court happens to be the most pro-plaintiff patent court you can find. It's not surprising the plaintiffs file there. > This is a part of the country which has very little Have you ever been there? > so big corporations fighting patent cases bring a lot of money into the area and prestige to a court which otherwise would be in a backwater. Do you think Apple fighting a court case floods money down the street like a river? > the jury is so biased Make whatever claims you want about the court, but if as you claim this area is a backwater with nothing going for it, how exactly is the local populace educated enough about the finer points of patent litigation to be biased? This is a stupid decision but the mental gymnastics you're going through to try to make it fault of the area is impressive.
      - freehunter 11y ago
        >Do you think Apple fighting a court case floods money down the street like a river? Yes. Lawyers have to eat, and they get paid enough to eat well. They need a place to stay, and they get paid enough to stay at a nice hotel. They need coffee, they need an airport, they need a rental car that needs gas. Your argument is that having people come to your city doesn't add to the local economy, but the fact that whole cities are built on tourism proves otherwise.
  - gobakhan 11y ago
    NPR: This American Life did an excellent episode about patent trolls where they cover east Texas and what it is about it that makes it so lucrative to file the suit there. Here is the episode transcript: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/t... The audio of the show can be listened to there as well. Apologies on not giving a summary. I normally would, but it has been a while since I listened to it and I don't want to misrepresent it.
Oletros 11y ago
I have not found any information about those invalidations.
DannyBee 11y ago
Here's a real answer (unlike the other "corruption" and "blah blah blah" answers): First, note that the federal circuit has ruled on these patents before, and upheld them. http://patentlyo.com/media/2014/09/Virnetx-v-Cisco.pdf http://patentlyo.com/media/2014/09/Virnetx-v-Cisco.pdf Apple conveniently leaves this part out. (i think it's a BS ruling, but it is a final appeals court ruling on the validity of the patents). As for the PTO finding them invalid: If you look at the file wrappers of these patents, you will see what apple means is "someone has requested review of these patents by the PTO, and they have initially been found invalid". (Apple's request to review validity was in fact, denied) Go to http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair Enter the patent numbers Click "image file wrapper". So they haven't "been found invalid", instead, they are going to trial before the PTAB to see whether they are invalid. Note: On a number of these patents, Apple's review requests have been denied a number of times before someone else's review request was granted
- piyush_soni 11y ago
  So as usual, Apple is lying/misleading people here. At least 'technically'.
  - calt 11y ago
    > So as usual, Apple is lying/misleading people here. At least 'technically'. No. Apple are arguing that the patents are invalid. They aren't sayin they have been found invalid already. The TechCrunch article said "All four of VirnetX’s patents have been found invalid by the patent office"
    - piyush_soni 11y ago
      >> They aren't sayin they have been found invalid already .. They are saying exactly that, at least according to their press statement.
      - pc86 11y ago
        It's legal posturing.
bobwaycott 11y ago
Exactly what I was going to ask.

mariusz79 11y ago

One patent troll has to pay another patent troll.. Good.

mcherm 11y ago
Perhaps apple ABUSES patents (that's a different discussion I do not want to get into), but I prefer to reserve the term "patent troll" for those individuals or organizations that do not actually perform invention nor manufacture, sales and marketing of actual products.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  That's a little bit too narrow. There are lots of companies out there that manufacture products but derive a large percentage of their revenue from patents. For example, the chips that Qualcomm makes have been described by some as a loss leader to hide and justify their very lucrative patent licensing business.
- mc808 11y ago
  That doesn't seem like a very useful distinction. Suppose new patent troll legislation comes along that would prevent enforcing a patent that isn't actively being used or developed (similar to trademarks). The trolls would just produce a cheap gizmo that depends on the patent in some way, and then blame the lack of sales on patent infringement. They'd colloquially still be called "trolls" based on a subjective judgment that they aren't really serious about selling the gizmo. When someone calls Apple et al. a patent troll, I think it's from the perception that they 1) apply for overly broad or obvious patents, and 2) enforce the patents offensively. Also a very subjective definition, but it doesn't seem any worse than arbitrary "uses/plans to use" criteria.
- piyush_soni 11y ago
  I use that term for companies judging from how useless the patent they are defending is. Like "slide to unlock", "rounded rectangles of the device" etc.
ReAzem 11y ago

SCHiM 11y ago

Ugh, disgusting. Think of how much damage that troll will now be able to wreak. With that kind of money it can buy all sorts of other patents and start the whole progress over again.

ethbro 11y ago
What we really need are patent co-ops. The problem as I see it is: patents exist to allow innovators to get paid for their inventions (setting aside the USPTO not being able to do its job correctly due to under-funding and granting bad patents), patents therefore have a monetary value, however that monetary value in fact scales with the monetary resources of the company it's held by (i.e. small companies cannot legally afford to enforce patent claims against behemoths that decide to fight), therefore there is a market incentive to create patent trolls (which increase the value of all patents by pooling them and amortizing prosecution cost/risk over a larger number of patents). It would seem like if you instead pooled patents in a co-op arrangement, retaining ownership by their original creators, but pooling them with others for efficiency / risk purposes and to obtain the necessary scale for optimal enforcement. Then work out some amiable proceed-sharing method on the backend. Win/win, and reducing the incentive for patent troll companies by providing an alternative. (Caveat: bad patents still need to be fixed at the USPTO source via additional funding / subject matter expert examiner requirements) Is something like this at all feasible legally? Or does something prevent the batching together of patents from various actual owners under a single legal proceeding?
- Retric 11y ago
  The problem is defecting becomes valuable. If I have a great patent, then selling to a troll let's me 'cash out' without needing actual customers.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Defecting being an optimal play is something that could be addressed via co-op rules. But that's my entire point. Currently, selling out to a patent troll (ignoring patents obtained from bankruptcies) is honestly the smartest move if you're a small company with a great patent. We should give such a company more socially-beneficial alternatives.

dangerlibrary 11y ago

Interestingly, the four patents in question cover ways of initiating a secure connection via DNS - nothing about video transcoding or low latency communication, which was my first guess. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6502135.PN.&OS=PN/6502135&RS=PN/6502135 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7418504.PN.&OS=PN/7418504&RS=PN/7418504 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7921211.PN.&OS=PN/7921211&RS=PN/7921211 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7490151.PN.&OS=PN/7490151&RS=PN/7490151 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...

robotnoises 11y ago

From the VirnetX website: http://virnetx.com/company/virnetx-promise/ http://virnetx.com/company/virnetx-promise/ "Cutting-edge secure communications technology is only one of the essential elements of our products – another is integrity. ..." lol, what products?

josaka 11y ago
FWIW, it looks like they acquired these patents from a company that actually does make something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Applications_International_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Applications_Internati... This is speculative, but these patent filings were probably part of a patent filing strategy that helped justify the employment of a what was likely a decent number of engineers by the original owner.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  I really can't say I care about those jobs. The engineers would have more than likely found other jobs with actual companies that actually do stuff.
  - josaka 11y ago
    According to the inventors' employer's website at the time of filing of these patents: "Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a Fortune 500 company, is the largest employee-owned research and engineering company in the nation. We provide information technology and systems integration solutions worldwide." https://web.archive.org/web/20000511195702/http://www.saic.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20000511195702/http://www.saic.c...
piyush_soni 11y ago
http://virnetx.com/virnetxs-gabriel-collaboration-suite-now-available-major-operating-systems/ http://virnetx.com/virnetxs-gabriel-collaboration-suite-now-... Not sure if they're actually out there, but at least their website lists one product.
11y ago

pmarreck 11y ago

@GabrielSecure is their (inactive, what a surprise) Twitter account, FYI.

Oletros 11y ago

And another case with software patents and a patent troll, how much damages they have done

kbenzle 11y ago

If this is the kind of impetus needed to set off patent reform, all the better. I would argue against the "Troll" label, it is a legal firm doing its job very well. The Troll bashers I assume would prefer the companies to just leave this $ to the infringes? Why? Is it somehow immoral to use the legal system for financial gain? No, it is not, not at all. I'd say good on them for finding the loop holes and driving their $600M lorrie straight through it to the bank. Don't say fuck the trolls, fuck the patent system in the US which Apple has used to the detriment of many young companies too, they are all playing the game.

replies_to_all 11y ago
Yep, if the "trolls" are trolls so is Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google, all of them, are we saying the US is made up of all trolls?
- st3v3r 11y ago
  "Trolls" don't do anything with the patents other than sue people. You'd be pretty hard pressed to say those companies don't use their patents.
dangerlibrary 11y ago
Typically the 'troll' label is applied to companies like Virnetx because they produce nothing of value. They are strictly rent seekers - net negative economic value creators. "It's a massive verdict for VirnetX, a company that has no products and makes its money solely through patent litigation."
- kbenson 11y ago
  Even that's selectively looking at the facts though. At some point they paid for those patents, and that theoretically put money in the pockets of creators, incentivizing them to create more. That said, to my eyes it's clearly a subversion of the intended purpose of patents, and is societally damaging, so I see no problem with derogatory labeling of this behavior and those that take part in it. It's unfortunate, but it's an important part of getting consensus in a short time frame with a large populace.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

I have a modest proposal to get rid of these patent trolls and these ridiculous settlements that typically are decided by a jury of West Texas farmers. Patents ought to be designated a non-transferrable property. Inventors may create a trust that receives patent revenues, and direct those revenues to any entity they please (their own company, their heirs, another company, a charity, etc.) but would not be able to actually sell the patents to any other company or individual. Then, patent holding companies would evaporate, and the revenue for ideas would go to those who created the ideas. If a company created many patents, say, Kodak, then goes out of business, it would leave behind a trust that would continue to receive revenue on those patents until they expired. If you choose not to, you can forfeit the patent and then it becomes public domain.

ant6n 11y ago
So the patent trolls will simply sue on behalf of the owner and collect a 90% 'fee'.
Oletros 11y ago
Are you saying that companies can't bought other companies and take ownership of their patents?
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Oh well, I guess that's the loophole in my proposal. But at least, a patent troll would have to buy an entire corporation rather than just its patent portfolio. Kodak, again: if let us say Toshiba wants Kodak's imaging patents, they'd have to buy Kodak in its entirety. At least this would raise the bar to acquiring patents.
  - jp_rider 11y ago
    I actually sort of like your proposal. Don't individuals have to file for patents and then employees buy it off them for like $1? If this is true, existing patents would fall into this loophole, but new patents could never end up in corporate hands since you can't buy a person. Another issue I see is that patent trolls could just represent patent owners in litigation and charge high legal fees (or sign a contract that they receive all revenue for the patent).

riskneural 11y ago

Makes Google's UK tax bill of 130 mill seem small.

collyw 11y ago
It was small compared to their profits.

mythz 11y ago

Now this Patent Troll has even more ammunition to shakedown companies in future whilst encouraging creation of even more low-life leeching NPE's. Clearly Patent Trolls adds negative value, harms progress and increases cost of business - how long will this legal racketeering be allowed to continue?

replies_to_all 11y ago
Or maybe they act to keep the big players honest?
- mythz 11y ago
  The big players can afford it, their existence just adds a barrier to entry and causes more harm to young/unestablished companies.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  If these were companies that actually did something, instead of waste everyone's time and resources, you'd have a point.
JackFr 11y ago
> low-life leeching NPE's NullPointerExceptions?
- mythz 11y ago
  Non Practicing Entities - i.e. trolls.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    Damn. Cause if someone patented NullPointerExceptions they'd sure be rich.
    - jkyle 11y ago
      Done. [1] 1. http://www.google.co.ug/patents/EP0881577A2?cl=fi http://www.google.co.ug/patents/EP0881577A2?cl=fi

acomjean 11y ago

is it my or does 625 million seem a tad excessive for a feature of the phone that isn't totally central and probably is used by maybe 20% of phone users? Apple has sold maybe 800million iOS devices. Say 400 million that support FaceTime. $1.50 per device. wow. Or 625,000,000/ 14 employees.

comex 11y ago

Almost as much as the $1B Apple was originally supposed to win from Samsung for equally silly patents. (It's since been slashed down to a tenth of that, but still.) Is it too much to say "live by the sword, die by the sword"?

rootusrootus 11y ago
What would you do if you were Apple? Would VirnetX have refused to go after them just because Apple had not gone after Samsung for "equally silly" patents? Seems like what you really want to say is "don't hate the player, hate the game."
- shawabawa3 11y ago
  > Seems like what you really want to say is "don't hate the player, hate the game." More like, "Hate the game, and hate the player for playing it" Instead of everyone joining in the patent suing racket, these big players should be lobbying for the laws to be changed
  - djrogers 11y ago
    >Instead of everyone joining in the patent suing racket, these big players should be lobbying for the laws to be changed Except you have to do both - if you ignore the racket you are much more exposed to lawsuits. Patents are used defensively between companies like Apple and Samsung, and if you give up that defense while trying to change the laws you are severely exposed. Tough balancing act.. The flip side of it is that I don't think we're likely to see these laws change until the current 2 party corrupt system is torn apart. Congress is completely bought and sold on both sides of the aisle and their owners like the current system (more laws = more lawsuits = more $$ for lawyers).
    - linkregister 11y ago
      > Except you have to do both - if you ignore the racket you are much more exposed to lawsuits Check this out: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/defensive-patent-license-and-other-ways-beat-patent-system https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/defensive-patent-licen... Google and Facebook are playing as well: https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-ou..., https://www.google.com/patents/licensing/dpl/non-sticky/ https://www.google.com/patents/licensing/dpl/non-sticky/ It should be mentioned that both of the above corporations grant this patent license for use and modification of the software they have open sourced.

kelukelugames 11y ago

It's not over yet. Apple will appeal.

DannyBee 11y ago

So, virnet is a spin-off of SAIC. SAIC is definitely not a troll (though i could believe virnet is :P).

bitmapbrother 11y ago

I must say it's rather funny that Apple is basically passing along their Samsung patent money onto VirnetX.

wnevets 11y ago

A patent troll getting patent trolled, great.

chrisgd 11y ago

I should totally be a patent troll. Are there any MOOCs that cover this?

Jemmeh 11y ago
A MOOC to be a mook.

Animats 11y ago

If they won in court against Apple, they're not a "patent troll". They invented something which Apple copied. Apple has patented, and tried to enforce, the claim that they have the exclusive right to devices with a screen on the front and round corners.[1] They lost, but they're still litigating that. [1] http://fortune.com/2015/08/19/apple-patents-rounded-corners/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/19/apple-patents-rounded-corners/

bobwaycott 11y ago
Not at all. With how widely known patent trolling is, there's nothing inherent in a patent dispute victory that signifies the patent protects a valid invention and that the party suing isn't a troll. All it means is that the troll succeeded in their trolling. That's equivalent to suggesting that if a person was found not guilty of a crime they actually committed, they didn't actually commit it. The legal system does not adjudicate reality. PS: The rounded corners patent is equally offensive as those bought up and profited from by trolls in the courts. Patents don't intrinsically signify authentic invention. They should, but there are far too many counter examples to rely on such a claim.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
A company patented the concept of making toast well after toasters were on the market. Another patented recurring payments of online service long after that was normal. Another guy modified a patent to cover podcasting after podcasting was invented and in use. Point being, something being patented != something being invented. It just means examiners agreed with the claims of a piece of paper then turned that into a piece of intellectual property. The wins then mean courts agreed that claims in that property match some other product to some degree. Neither means someone copied someone. Whether that's true varies on a case by case basis. I think it's telling that many defendants develop their own, "infringing" tech without ever hearing of the plantiff or their patents. Hard to copy what you don't know exists. In science, we call it independent invention but patent system makes that impossible. Plus, on software patents, what programmers have you met who comb through patent databases to solve their day-to-day problems? I've never met one. Concluding, patents are legal pronouncements that may or may not cover inventions. Rulings on copying may be right or bullshit. Copying is usually unknowing or independent invention because nobody solves problems with patent databases in our industry. I remember running into maybe 3 or 4 worth looking at in Google search solving a problem. One was novel but others patented ideas already in products or Comp Sci literature. Well-known ideas that were foundational to product success. (sighs)

WalterBright 11y ago

The large companies seem to be constantly in patent battles, often with each other, both as plaintiffs and as defendants. They win some and lose some. Since this is unproductive activity, due to lawyer bills and the diversion of attention from their core businesses, it simply must be a net loss for those players. Why don't they call each other up, declare a truce, and cooperate in lobbying Congress to fix (i.e. largely repeal) patent law?

iraphael 11y ago
Truces are declared to some extent with patent pools. Not a lot of action towards lobbying Congress for patent reform, though (which is very needed). http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studi...
bobbles 11y ago
Doesn't work when the companies in question exist purely for patent lawsuits
- WalterBright 11y ago
  Right, but if Google Apple Microsoft Amazon etc. get together and lobby to end software patents, they can overwhelm the trolls.
iwwr 11y ago
Large companies are not endangered by patent lawsuits, not even from trolls. They have enough power to fight most suits and even when they lose it's not a big sting. Patent portfolios allow the giants to consolidate their position and defend against competition from smaller companies. Economies of scale in terms of lawyers is what small companies don't have and giants aren't shy about threatening smaller players who may pose a threat (although they usually just buy them out).

profeta 11y ago

considering that apple is in itself a patent troll of the worst kind (buying companies with interesting patents, such as FingerWorks, and forbiding any and all licensing on those patents) i'm not even mad with this news.

cloverich 11y ago
That doesn't fit my understanding of Patent troll -- buying Patents, not making anything, then blanket suing companies to try and make a living. Not defending Apple's behavior as such, but it seems to not be the same thing.

azth 11y ago

Why doesn't the legal system immediately dismiss such lawsuits by the patent trolls? It is obvious what they're after.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
notacoward 11y ago
Because courts adjudicate laws, and it's the laws that are broken. The alternative would be courts that just make up their own versions of the law, which has its own problems. Among those is the tendency for patent trolls (or their equivalents in other kinds of cases) bringing suit in whichever jurisdiction is friendliest to them, and there's entirely too much of that going on in East Texas already.

mankash666 11y ago

In light of Apple patent trolling the Samsungs & HTCs on curved rectangles, is this just karma?