17 ms·
Judge wipes out patent troll’s $625M verdict against Apple
- StanislavPetrov 10y agoPatent trolls are a symptom of the disease that is our horribly broken patent system, which also serves to stifle innovation and protect the interests of large, entrenched businesses at the expense of everyone else. Unfortunately, instead of working to fix our broken patent system, we are doubling down and trying to impose it on a global basis via the TPP (often categorized as a "free trade" deal when it is in fact quite the opposite) and other misbegotten treaties.
- MicroBerto 10y agoThere is one US candidate who is against TPP, but unfortunately, I highly doubt anyone nearby understands the devastation that software patent trolls cause on the tech industry.
- StanislavPetrov 10y agoThere are several, actually. I voted for Jill Stein in the last two elections and I plan on making this year the trifecta!
- seizethecheese 10y agoActually, they're all against TPP except for Gary Johnson.
- MicroBerto 10y agoClinton is most certainly not against TPP.
- seizethecheese 10y agoShe's been ostensibly against the TPP for almost a year. Do your research. https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal#tab=Democratic_candidate https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_... (Edit: better link)
- hooph00p 10y agoyou definitely have this backwards.
- seizethecheese 10y agoNope, do your research please. A link about Trump and Clinton opposing: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/pushing-tpp-president-obama-argument-trump-clinton/story?id=41074632 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/pushing-tpp-president-obama-a...
- praseodym 10y agoBack in 2013, Apple had to redesign FaceTime to use server relayed connections instead of peer-to-peer to circumvent VirnetX's patent(s) [1]. I wonder if, after this verdict, they will (and are allowed to) undo this change and start doing peer-to-peer again; Apple will probably have invested quite a lot in their (cloud) infrastructure to support these server relayed connections. [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-patent-loss-apple-tweaks-facetime-and-logs-500000-complaints/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-pate...
- bhhaskin 10y agoI wonder if they could take action against VirnetX for the costs of switching to a new system.
- sverige 10y agoSo, company A develops a different solution to avoid paying licensing fees for a patent owned by company B, and somehow company B is liable for A's costs to develop the new system? That makes no sense to me, frankly. It would be like demanding that your competitor subsidize your R&D.
- wernercd 10y agoIf Company B creates frivolous patents or is a NPE (Non Producing entity)? They deserve to be punished... (not sure if this is the case here)
- FreeKill 10y agoGuess it would depend on whether the entire justification for the R&D and thus the expenses incurred as a result was due to a fraudulent claim that your original tech violated a patent. Without that fraudulent claim, would Company A have invested in any of that R&D?
- marcoperaza 10y agoThat'd be a separate tort that would need to be proven. Simply having a difference of legal opinion and losing in court is not fraud. The outcome wasn't even thrown out on its merits, but on concerns about procedural fairness.
- erdevs 10y agoThis is good news in that I generally feel any setback for an apparent patent troll is a good thing. But this isn't too broad. Looks like a very specific issue to this trial... not even this patent claim or case, let alone a broader implication for patent claims in general. It sounds like VirnetX's lawyers simply referenced a previous case too often in the judge's estimation, and so he's throwing the verdict out, meaning a retrial would be necessary. Case doesn't seem to set any precedent (or, what precedent it does set on referencing previous trials might cut both ways for patent plaintiffs and defendants). Noting regarding merits of claims or anything as far as I can tell from the reporting. If anyone more expert can weigh in or correct, that'd be appreciated too!
- MOARDONGZPLZ 10y agoThis is essentially exactly what happened. I work in this field. Because of the complexities of the trial and the overlap in subject matter/patents, the judge felt that the jurors could have been confused and vacated the verdict. It doesn't really have many applications for this area of law outside of this case.
- rhizome 10y agoJust to clarify "referenced a previous case," what VirnetX did was say, "Apple said the same things in a previous case where we prevailed," to the effect of "they used the same rationale when they lost before, so they should lose here, too." Which is just bad logic.
- asdfologist 10y agoNot sure what you mean. This verdict implies a net zero loss to patent trolls.
- erdevs 10y agoWhat? Sure, there is no direct loss here. But it is a setback. Also, they (at least temporarily) lose the previously established verdict award ($625M, apparently) and also now have to decide whether to re-try (with the associated costs).
- Aelinsaar 10y agoThat has to be quite the moment, when you realize that the more than half billion you were about to see a piece of evaporates.
- jessaustin 10y ago...that moment when you realize you should have accepted the negotiated settlement. Incidentally, this seems so... capricious. The judge presided over a trial during which a previous trial (that was OK to mention) was mentioned too many times? Maybe he should have just stopped that while he was presiding, rather than waiting until later? It almost looks like he was surprised by the giant size of the verdict, and worried it might focus too much attention on the travesty that is East Texas, so he's looking to get out on a technicality?
- Steko 10y ago> capricious... I don't see any justification for this. > The judge presided over a trial during which a previous trial (that was OK to mention) was mentioned too many times? Maybe he should have just stopped that while he was presiding, rather than waiting until later? 'Maybe judges should never make mistakes' sounds like a great plan but you might want a backup plan and one better than accusing them of capriciousness when they do make mistakes. > It almost looks like he was surprised by the giant size of the verdict, and worried it might focus too much attention on the travesty that is East Texas, so he's looking to get out on a technicality? It almost looks like he fucked up and Apple's highly paid legal team had him dead to rights and rather than be reversed by a higher court he took the medicine himself.
- jessaustin 10y agoRead the order: the whole motion is based on the mentions being fine for one suit and prejudicial for the other, and Apple consented to the consolidation. If one accepts the ridiculous record of patent jurisprudence in East Texas, there is nothing in this order to justify a new trial. If, like me, one doesn't accept that, it's obvious that the judge is just trying to keep the whole disgusting façade from collapsing.
- dagaci 10y agoPatents are very much open to abuse. Giant tech could seriously lobby for a change... but for Apple and other giant tech-corporations there's a quandary: they can use patents to protect themselves, but at the same time those same patent methods can be used against them
- api 10y agoThis is extremely good news for anyone doing... well... pretty much anything interesting with network protocols. This troll covers among other things: anything P2P, SIP, DNSSec, VoIP that does not flow through a central server, certain types of VPNs, certain types of SDN, ... it's crazy.
- pjc50 10y agoSo what does it cover, in a user-friendly summary?
- hackaflocka 10y agoHow much do judges charge for this sort of thing? Anybody know?
- exo762 10y agoThat's very mean spirited of you. Judges are a vital part of three branches of government. Their power relies on respect, not guns or ability to write laws. The reason for contempt of court laws, whole circus with black robes, "your honor" is to create appearance of "wow, those people are important". Because they REALLY are a very important part of good governance. They just don't have muscle to prove it to you. And you don't really want them to have to rely on muscle of executive branch. Because in case of you vs executive, judges need to be impartial, independent, having their own weight in society. Unless you know something we don't, you should not imply that this judge is corrupt.
- imaginenore 10y agoPatent troll or not, I find it's pretty crazy that a single judge can throw out the jury verdict simply because he didn't like the arguments of one side.
- topbagsvk 10y agoI don't see any justification for this - http://www.topbagsvk.com/ http://www.topbagsvk.com/
- exo762 10y agoEvery time I see a Patent Troll vs Big Tech Corp case, I root for Patent Troll. Don't get me wrong, patent trolls are menace of tech world deserving to be tarred and feathered. But truth is, PTs are not main beneficiaries of broken system. Main beneficiaries are Big Tech Corps (APLN, MSFT, GOOG, ETC). Coincidentally, those companies have enough leverage to fix this system if they wanted to. Problem is - they don't. That's why I root for Patent Troll every time.
- jshevek 10y agoI can see a line of reasoning that suggests that if abusive patent trolls had enough success against the giant tech companies, that the tech companies might consequently lobby for patent reform (for the purpose of protecting themselves from trolls), with the additional consequence that the reform would also limit their own ability to abuse patents. Sadly, that is not likely to happen. IIRC, Apple lobbied for patent 'reform' that targeted NPEs, while leaving producers completely off the hook for patent abuse.
- ww520 10y agoThe lawyers all cheer! It will be a retrial.
- nitin_flanker 10y agoSimilar is going to be the story of Mr. Chan's patent which is also known as the first patent of Hoverboards. Mr. Chan has sued more than 30 companies for infringing his patent. But an analysis [1] says that his patent holds no water and is not novel. The day his patent will get challenged in a court and get invalidated, a similar article with a different headline will appear on Arstechnica. [1]http://www.greyb.com/first-patent-on-hoverboard-can-get-invalidated/ http://www.greyb.com/first-patent-on-hoverboard-can-get-inva...
- tjl 10y agoAt least in that case there's a physical product. I don't mind patents, but I prefer the original version where you needed a physical implementation. I don't know about his design in particular, but I have the mechanical and electronic skills to design something that would likely infringe on his patent and I haven't read the patent or even looked at a breakdown of a hoverboard. The patent probably doesn't meet the novelty requirements.
- Chaxxxi 10y agoForgive the noob comment, but how does the patent troll know that it can sue Apple? How do they know what infrastructure Apple is using? Do they just sue indiscriminately and find winner cases through discovery?
- mathattack 10y agoAlthough Apple is probably ok without the money, I cheer every time I see someone win in one of the trolling cases. It takes big companies to fight this - ones with deep enough pockets and long enough time horizons to realize that feeding the trolls enables them to grow. When I read that these are jury trials, it seems to me that East Texas must have an army of people who now know quite a bit about patent law having sat through so many of these cases. Strange specialization.
- don_right 10y agoInteresting
- ommunist 10y agoAs Stallman pointed years ago, software patents are evil. And I agree with him on that point 100%. EU software patenting is less evil, but still is.