3 ms·

> the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined in any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of millions

by jb613 10y ago

> the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined in any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of millions out of Apple et al for using end-to-end crypto. Couple of things seriously wrong in this statement alone: 1) I seriously doubt you can describe the patents as "end-to-end crypto". If you are going to broadly describe something rather complex in 4 words then I would suggest "Apple’s VPN on demand function" as a better example. Similar #num of words yet suddenly significantly narrower isn't it. However, even that doesn't scratch the surface, looking at the titles of the patents in trial provides a better glimpse that this is more than just simply "end-to-end crypto": 6,502,135 - Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability 7,418,504 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names 7,490,151 - Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request 7,921,211 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names Are you starting to understand that this isn't merely "end-to-end crypto" or do we need to go into the Claims and how to properly begin to evaluate patent property boundaries? 2) I don't have the time to replay the entire infringement trial, but it seems to me you believe this trial was unjust or resulted in an improper outcome. I highly doubt that Apple had incompetent lawyers or did not have enough resources. The court and jury disagrees with your assessment. > Unfortunately, that works better for the bigger players. Measured by market cap, Apple is the worlds biggest corporation. VirnetX is not small, not tiny, but rather miniscule in comparison. Is this is fight between 2 big players? No. Did the bigger player win? No. > There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some way. Proves my point in previous post - small players don't have to re-invent the kitchen sink (in this case smartphones) but rather should focus on some small innovation (e.g. a VPN on demand feature - except translate to something of tomorrow - these patents are from 10-15 years ago). Find that 50 LOC - not re-invent 500k LOC. For now, the only pitfall is that larger players still believe they are better off to fight later in court rather than license now from the inventor when they find a new innovation. Blackberry learned 10 years ago, maybe Apple will learn today, and hopefully others will learn from their lessons. Patents enable the small player to innovate and find success.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
" I seriously doubt you can describe the patents as "end-to-end crypto"" It doesn't matter what you describe them as. What matters is what you can enforce them on. It's clever that you focus on VPN while ignoring product pertinent to this conversation: iMessage. Virnetx not only thinks they deserve credit for any end-to-end messaging app but also wants to shut them down. http://btlj.org/2016/04/patent-privateering-virnetx-v-apple/ http://btlj.org/2016/04/patent-privateering-virnetx-v-apple/ http://www.medianama.com/2016/05/223-now-virnetx-wants-apple-to-block-facetime-and-imessage-patent-trolls/ http://www.medianama.com/2016/05/223-now-virnetx-wants-apple... Not just Apple's. They're going after any big company that's doing end-to-end encryption plus has money. They're also asking products to be taken off the market. Nobody used their patents or invention to build their products. The state-of-the-art in this space is way ahead of Virnetx's paltry offering that nobody wants. The only results of patents here are (a) anti-competitive behavior, (b) leeching off successful companies, and (c) probably helping NSA defeat widespread crypto easier via BULLRUN program and their partners at SAIC. "Proves my point in previous post - small players don't have to re-invent the kitchen sink (in this case smartphones) but rather should focus on some small innovation (e.g. a VPN on demand feature - except translate to something of tomorrow - these patents are from 10-15 years ago). Find that 50 LOC" What are you talking about? You can't sell 50LOC: you have to have whatever is standard or nobody will buy it. That's easy without patent enforcement in effect. Just build it, deploy it, and get first-mover advantage. Now, let's test your little theory on VOIP which Vodaphone has a patent on. How do you create a voice over IP product without infringing a patent that claims to cover any transmission of voice over any data channel? And in courts that rule in favor of patent-holder almost 100% of the time? Good luck. "Patents enable the small player to innovate and find success." Most patents are filed by (a) big companies that sue small players for infringement or (b) Universities that sell patents to big companies that sue small players for infringement. The smaller companies, independent or academic spinoffs, often get acquired by big players that then sue small players for infringement. The big companies also hit outrageous profit margins due to lack of competition. Most studies of effect on patent system shows this to be the case. Your claim about small businesses is a legend. That is, it's mostly a myth but with occasionally success stories to give it what little truth it has. Patents don't create innovation: corporate competition and often, government-funded research create most innovation. Patents then just restrict competition and drive prices up.

by jb613 10y ago

nickpsecurity 10y ago

" I seriously doubt you can describe the patents as "end-to-end crypto"" It doesn't matter what you describe them as. What matters is what you can enforce them on. It's clever that you focus on VPN while ignoring product pertinent to this conversation: iMessage. Virnetx not only thinks they deserve credit for any end-to-end messaging app but also wants to shut them down. http://btlj.org/2016/04/patent-privateering-virnetx-v-apple/ http://btlj.org/2016/04/patent-privateering-virnetx-v-apple/ http://www.medianama.com/2016/05/223-now-virnetx-wants-apple-to-block-facetime-and-imessage-patent-trolls/ http://www.medianama.com/2016/05/223-now-virnetx-wants-apple... Not just Apple's. They're going after any big company that's doing end-to-end encryption plus has money. They're also asking products to be taken off the market. Nobody used their patents or invention to build their products. The state-of-the-art in this space is way ahead of Virnetx's paltry offering that nobody wants. The only results of patents here are (a) anti-competitive behavior, (b) leeching off successful companies, and (c) probably helping NSA defeat widespread crypto easier via BULLRUN program and their partners at SAIC. "Proves my point in previous post - small players don't have to re-invent the kitchen sink (in this case smartphones) but rather should focus on some small innovation (e.g. a VPN on demand feature - except translate to something of tomorrow - these patents are from 10-15 years ago). Find that 50 LOC" What are you talking about? You can't sell 50LOC: you have to have whatever is standard or nobody will buy it. That's easy without patent enforcement in effect. Just build it, deploy it, and get first-mover advantage. Now, let's test your little theory on VOIP which Vodaphone has a patent on. How do you create a voice over IP product without infringing a patent that claims to cover any transmission of voice over any data channel? And in courts that rule in favor of patent-holder almost 100% of the time? Good luck. "Patents enable the small player to innovate and find success." Most patents are filed by (a) big companies that sue small players for infringement or (b) Universities that sell patents to big companies that sue small players for infringement. The smaller companies, independent or academic spinoffs, often get acquired by big players that then sue small players for infringement. The big companies also hit outrageous profit margins due to lack of competition. Most studies of effect on patent system shows this to be the case. Your claim about small businesses is a legend. That is, it's mostly a myth but with occasionally success stories to give it what little truth it has. Patents don't create innovation: corporate competition and often, government-funded research create most innovation. Patents then just restrict competition and drive prices up.