9 ms·

Apple fails to overturn VirnetX patent verdict, could owe over $1.1B

129 points by clairity 6y ago

coolspot 6y ago
Those are VirnetX US Patents No. 6,502,135 and No. 7,490,151 . https://patents.google.com/patent/US6502135B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6502135B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7490151B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7490151B2/en
- TheDong 6y ago
  These patents sound like they loosely describe a worse version of ssl/tls. They talk about the client having a whitelist of IPs to form secure channels to, and using a combination of a dns proxy and cooperating client to form secure communication layers. The actual described thing sounds a little different (i.e. 'requests for 192.168/24 have a transparently encrypted link' rather than tls handshakes), but not different enough that it's not obvious. From the existence of SSL, dns, and a VPN, this idea seems quite obvious to me. In 1998, all of those things existed. The existence of SSL (in 1995), should have by itself invalidated this patent entirely IMO. From the case filings, it sounds like the supposedly infringing part of Apple's tech is "VPN On Demand" and "FaceTime". I am not a patent lawyer, I likely don't know what I'm talking about.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    > I am not a patent lawyer, I likely don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not so sure patent lawyers, and more importantly judges and jurors, know what they are talking about when it comes to technical details.
  - LoSboccacc 6y ago
    the solution for routing voip on a mesh network wasn't obvious. data? yeah, albeit p2p sharing was popularized a year late, aggregating multiple channels for data transfer was something common. but voip has some unique challenges, as you cannot reconstruct data as easily, you have strict time constraint as your call would exhibit disruptive latency otherwise, so your mesh cannot pump packet downstream at their own leisure, the goal is not to saturate the channel but to provide a ordered stream whee packets arrive in a timely matter. as a matter of fact the first consumer available p2p voip app was skype, 5 years or so after this patent, and they couldn't stabilize it with a true mesh so their software elected supernodes across their own network to act as relay.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    > I am not a patent lawyer, I likely don't know what I'm talking about. The point of a patent nowadays is to be as vague as possible while still unmistakably protecting the core invention, so that a future patent infringement lawsuit receives the benefits of claims with broad scope. My cofounder and I were once told by our patent attorney (himself a startup founder) that he views a patent application as a failure if the USPTO approves it on the first attempt, because that means he was too specific with his claims. Frankly, as ugly as it sounds, I don't blame the attorneys for working that angle. The patent system itself is structured in such a way as to reward gamesmanship. Technologists are used to viewing clarity and conciseness as positive attributes for technical writing, but straightforwardness is kind of naive and undesirable in the patent world.
- api 6y ago
  These are basically patents on something talking to somethings securely over the Internet. It's absolutely outrageous. Luckily the first one is expired.
akersten 6y ago
Of course it's the Eastern District of Texas. The intention of the patent system was to promote the useful proliferation of the sciences and arts. Billion-dollar verdicts to companies that do not even produce a marketable product are the antithesis of that intention. It is not clear to me how to solve this problem aside from tearing down the patent system and never rebuilding it. Gone are the days when an inventor in their garage is prevented from the exploitation of a large company by virtue of a patent they filed for their invention. Now, holding companies exist to absorb patents that describe the most abstract and nebulous ideas in order to leech the maximal value from real companies, and courts like this enable them. End the patent system. (I'd be happy if we even just got rid of software patents on the existing basis that math cannot be patented, but while I'm on my soapbox, might as well go all the way.)
- loceng 6y ago
  I've liked the idea of an exponential cost to holding a patent - as in, the cost to maintain it doubles every year. If you're producing a product that's highly successful, profitable, then you'll be able to afford to keep the patent for more years. If you're a patent troll not producing anything, it's going to get expensive quick. Edit to add: I just realized patents are definitely part of the legal industrial complex..
  - akersten 6y ago
    If that could be implemented fairly (scaling costs based on total revenue so small-time businesses aren't locked out of the system, without giving non-producers/patent trolls a free $0 patent) then that seems like a good compromise.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      No, that’s a waste. If it’s not worth scaling up the cost, it’s not worth it for society to give the business exclusivity.
  - erk__ 6y ago
    But this will not solve anything else about patents, there will be less reason to license them and such as the amount of time they can run for without any special income through the patent will be much less. Thus giving companies and inventors with a large capital a larger one up on the people that patents are also supposed to protect.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> In a decision issued on Friday, U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder in Tyler, Texas rejected Apple’s request for a new trial and several other claims. > These included that [...] jurors should have been told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had deemed VirnetX’s claims “unpatentable.” This article really should have elaborated on why jurors didn't need to be told that they were (apparently) awarding damages for infringement of unpatentable claims. Or really why, if the claims weren't patentable, the case wasn't thrown out of court. Or perhaps the claims were patentable, and the article needed to elaborate on exactly what Apple was trying to describe there. Either way, this is absolutely worthless coverage.
- ada1981 6y ago
  Yes this struck me as odd. The article makes it seem that they are being awarded $1B for infringing on a parent that is not valid. Is this correct?
BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
> In a decision issued on Friday, U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder in Tyler, Texas rejected Apple’s request ... that ... jurors should have been told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had deemed VirnetX’s claims “unpatentable.” If the USPTO deemed them unpatentable, where did the patents come from?
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  Looks like it's a concurrent case that Apple is pursuing, so VirnetX were granted the patents and sued Apple on that behalf. Apple is fighting this patent infringement lawsuit, and at the same time, seeking to invalidate the patents in a separate case in front of the US PTO: > Apple contends that it is entitled to a new trial because the Court excluded evidence from parallel PTO proceedings. Docket No. 775 at 39. Apple suggests that the fact that the PTO has issued final written decisions finding each claim unpatentable over the prior art is relevant to damages. > The Court is not persuaded that exclusion of the PTO proceedings warrants a new trial. VirnetX’s appeals of those proceedings are ongoing, and none of the asserted claims has been cancelled. It is particularly unclear what probative value the PTO proceedings have in light of the fact that invalidity is not an issue in this case. > To the extent Apple argues the decisions are relevant to damages, the relevance of the decisions is minimal because a number of the “decisions” cited in Apple’s offer of proof2 on PTO proceedings were issued afterthe parties’ alleged hypothetical negotiation date of September 2013. Compare Docket No. 721 at 18 (“If infringement is found, the date of the hypothetical negotiation would be September 2013, when the redesigned versions of VPN on Demand and FaceTime were released.”), with Docket No. 692 (Apple’s offer of proof). > Apple suggests that the evidence would have been relevant to the utility and advantages of the patented property over old modes or devices. Id. But, contrary to its assertions, Apple was not precluded from introducing evidence that the claimed invention “has no utility or advantages over old modes or devices.” Id. The Court only prohibited the use of the PTO proceedings, and Apple was free to present whatever evidence relating to Georgia-Pacific factors 9 and 10 it so chose. > Apple is not entitled to a new trial on this basis. Page 36 here: https://patentlyo.com/media/2018/09/Apple500MLoss.pdf https://patentlyo.com/media/2018/09/Apple500MLoss.pdf
  - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Plestor 6y ago
Waaaah! Pocket change. Nothing to see here.... Move along.
savant_penguin 6y ago
Are patent trolls really different from IBM (+others)? I generally see strong backlash against "companies that produce nothing" yet sue everyone else. However it's really easy for large companies with mountains of patents (many of which will never be products) to strong-arm smaller companies into cross-licensing (anything you build will surely breach some patent). So they would only get paid by their patents and hardly ever have to pay anyone else due to the patent system. By this principle, only a company that produces nothing could ever hope to sue the technology behemoths for patent breaching. Point here being that it's not the eastern district of texas that's at fault, nor the patent trolls (because other companies use the patent system in very similar ways). It's the patent system that's complete utter bullshit
- wahern 6y ago
  > By this principle, only a company that produces nothing could ever hope to sue the technology behemoths for patent breaching. True, there's a fair amount of hypocrisy. Patent trolls (NPEs) suck for everybody, but they especially suck for large corporations as large patent portfolios and cross-licensing agreements (actual and potential) mean they usually don't have to worry about an endless train of trivial patents posing an existential threat to every line of product development. The rise of patent trolls has meant that the pain of software patents is distributed more equitably. And, of course, theoretically this makes it easier for individuals and small companies to monetize patents. But patent trolls also pose a unique problem for smaller players because the ability of big companies to threaten small players is limited by laws and regulations that restrain anti-competitive behavior. Patent trolls almost by definition aren't subject to such restraints. Thus, while most large corporations lobby against patent trolls, it's not uncommon for them to sell to NPEs patents that they couldn't easily prosecute themselves. Patent trolls make it easier for everybody to monetize patents, but in practice it's the small players that arguably get the short end of the stick.
- kinghtown 6y ago
  Your response begs the question wether you work for a patent troll. Not seriously suggesting that, but come on: 1. They are user hostile. They add no value to the world. Only hinder technology and make life worse for the public. 2. Has any patent troll ever taken their court settlements to actually produce anything? 3. Anyone who knows anything about them only views them as blood sucking leeches. 4. HN loves to paint Apple as Satan but at least they bring quality products to market.
2bitencryption 6y ago
> U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder in Tyler, Texas whoah, isn't that infamously patent troll capital of the world?
- confiq 6y ago
  yes it is: https://www.vox.com/2017/5/23/15678290/patent-trolls-eastern-texas-supreme-court https://www.vox.com/2017/5/23/15678290/patent-trolls-eastern...
swiley 6y ago
What fresh hell is this? Wouldn't quake violate this patent?
- olliej 6y ago
  Even the uspto said the patents weren’t actually patentable but the judge said the jury should not be allowed to know that
Erlangen 6y ago
The patent system is crazy. It reminds me this, "patent lawsuit against GNOME", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21071699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21071699
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

129 points by clairity 6y ago

Those are VirnetX US Patents No. 6,502,135 and No. 7,490,151 . https://patents.google.com/patent/US6502135B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6502135B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7490151B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7490151B2/en

TheDong 6y ago
These patents sound like they loosely describe a worse version of ssl/tls. They talk about the client having a whitelist of IPs to form secure channels to, and using a combination of a dns proxy and cooperating client to form secure communication layers. The actual described thing sounds a little different (i.e. 'requests for 192.168/24 have a transparently encrypted link' rather than tls handshakes), but not different enough that it's not obvious. From the existence of SSL, dns, and a VPN, this idea seems quite obvious to me. In 1998, all of those things existed. The existence of SSL (in 1995), should have by itself invalidated this patent entirely IMO. From the case filings, it sounds like the supposedly infringing part of Apple's tech is "VPN On Demand" and "FaceTime". I am not a patent lawyer, I likely don't know what I'm talking about.
- zucker42 6y ago
  > I am not a patent lawyer, I likely don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not so sure patent lawyers, and more importantly judges and jurors, know what they are talking about when it comes to technical details.
- LoSboccacc 6y ago
  the solution for routing voip on a mesh network wasn't obvious. data? yeah, albeit p2p sharing was popularized a year late, aggregating multiple channels for data transfer was something common. but voip has some unique challenges, as you cannot reconstruct data as easily, you have strict time constraint as your call would exhibit disruptive latency otherwise, so your mesh cannot pump packet downstream at their own leisure, the goal is not to saturate the channel but to provide a ordered stream whee packets arrive in a timely matter. as a matter of fact the first consumer available p2p voip app was skype, 5 years or so after this patent, and they couldn't stabilize it with a true mesh so their software elected supernodes across their own network to act as relay.
- totalZero 6y ago
  > I am not a patent lawyer, I likely don't know what I'm talking about. The point of a patent nowadays is to be as vague as possible while still unmistakably protecting the core invention, so that a future patent infringement lawsuit receives the benefits of claims with broad scope. My cofounder and I were once told by our patent attorney (himself a startup founder) that he views a patent application as a failure if the USPTO approves it on the first attempt, because that means he was too specific with his claims. Frankly, as ugly as it sounds, I don't blame the attorneys for working that angle. The patent system itself is structured in such a way as to reward gamesmanship. Technologists are used to viewing clarity and conciseness as positive attributes for technical writing, but straightforwardness is kind of naive and undesirable in the patent world.
api 6y ago
These are basically patents on something talking to somethings securely over the Internet. It's absolutely outrageous. Luckily the first one is expired.

akersten 6y ago

Of course it's the Eastern District of Texas. The intention of the patent system was to promote the useful proliferation of the sciences and arts. Billion-dollar verdicts to companies that do not even produce a marketable product are the antithesis of that intention. It is not clear to me how to solve this problem aside from tearing down the patent system and never rebuilding it. Gone are the days when an inventor in their garage is prevented from the exploitation of a large company by virtue of a patent they filed for their invention. Now, holding companies exist to absorb patents that describe the most abstract and nebulous ideas in order to leech the maximal value from real companies, and courts like this enable them. End the patent system. (I'd be happy if we even just got rid of software patents on the existing basis that math cannot be patented, but while I'm on my soapbox, might as well go all the way.)

loceng 6y ago
I've liked the idea of an exponential cost to holding a patent - as in, the cost to maintain it doubles every year. If you're producing a product that's highly successful, profitable, then you'll be able to afford to keep the patent for more years. If you're a patent troll not producing anything, it's going to get expensive quick. Edit to add: I just realized patents are definitely part of the legal industrial complex..
- akersten 6y ago
  If that could be implemented fairly (scaling costs based on total revenue so small-time businesses aren't locked out of the system, without giving non-producers/patent trolls a free $0 patent) then that seems like a good compromise.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    No, that’s a waste. If it’s not worth scaling up the cost, it’s not worth it for society to give the business exclusivity.
- erk__ 6y ago
  But this will not solve anything else about patents, there will be less reason to license them and such as the amount of time they can run for without any special income through the patent will be much less. Thus giving companies and inventors with a large capital a larger one up on the people that patents are also supposed to protect.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> In a decision issued on Friday, U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder in Tyler, Texas rejected Apple’s request for a new trial and several other claims. > These included that [...] jurors should have been told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had deemed VirnetX’s claims “unpatentable.” This article really should have elaborated on why jurors didn't need to be told that they were (apparently) awarding damages for infringement of unpatentable claims. Or really why, if the claims weren't patentable, the case wasn't thrown out of court. Or perhaps the claims were patentable, and the article needed to elaborate on exactly what Apple was trying to describe there. Either way, this is absolutely worthless coverage.

ada1981 6y ago
Yes this struck me as odd. The article makes it seem that they are being awarded $1B for infringing on a parent that is not valid. Is this correct?

BugsJustFindMe 6y ago

> In a decision issued on Friday, U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder in Tyler, Texas rejected Apple’s request ... that ... jurors should have been told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had deemed VirnetX’s claims “unpatentable.” If the USPTO deemed them unpatentable, where did the patents come from?

mikeyouse 6y ago
Looks like it's a concurrent case that Apple is pursuing, so VirnetX were granted the patents and sued Apple on that behalf. Apple is fighting this patent infringement lawsuit, and at the same time, seeking to invalidate the patents in a separate case in front of the US PTO: > Apple contends that it is entitled to a new trial because the Court excluded evidence from parallel PTO proceedings. Docket No. 775 at 39. Apple suggests that the fact that the PTO has issued final written decisions finding each claim unpatentable over the prior art is relevant to damages. > The Court is not persuaded that exclusion of the PTO proceedings warrants a new trial. VirnetX’s appeals of those proceedings are ongoing, and none of the asserted claims has been cancelled. It is particularly unclear what probative value the PTO proceedings have in light of the fact that invalidity is not an issue in this case. > To the extent Apple argues the decisions are relevant to damages, the relevance of the decisions is minimal because a number of the “decisions” cited in Apple’s offer of proof2 on PTO proceedings were issued afterthe parties’ alleged hypothetical negotiation date of September 2013. Compare Docket No. 721 at 18 (“If infringement is found, the date of the hypothetical negotiation would be September 2013, when the redesigned versions of VPN on Demand and FaceTime were released.”), with Docket No. 692 (Apple’s offer of proof). > Apple suggests that the evidence would have been relevant to the utility and advantages of the patented property over old modes or devices. Id. But, contrary to its assertions, Apple was not precluded from introducing evidence that the claimed invention “has no utility or advantages over old modes or devices.” Id. The Court only prohibited the use of the PTO proceedings, and Apple was free to present whatever evidence relating to Georgia-Pacific factors 9 and 10 it so chose. > Apple is not entitled to a new trial on this basis. Page 36 here: https://patentlyo.com/media/2018/09/Apple500MLoss.pdf https://patentlyo.com/media/2018/09/Apple500MLoss.pdf
- 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Plestor 6y ago

Waaaah! Pocket change. Nothing to see here.... Move along.

savant_penguin 6y ago

Are patent trolls really different from IBM (+others)? I generally see strong backlash against "companies that produce nothing" yet sue everyone else. However it's really easy for large companies with mountains of patents (many of which will never be products) to strong-arm smaller companies into cross-licensing (anything you build will surely breach some patent). So they would only get paid by their patents and hardly ever have to pay anyone else due to the patent system. By this principle, only a company that produces nothing could ever hope to sue the technology behemoths for patent breaching. Point here being that it's not the eastern district of texas that's at fault, nor the patent trolls (because other companies use the patent system in very similar ways). It's the patent system that's complete utter bullshit

wahern 6y ago
> By this principle, only a company that produces nothing could ever hope to sue the technology behemoths for patent breaching. True, there's a fair amount of hypocrisy. Patent trolls (NPEs) suck for everybody, but they especially suck for large corporations as large patent portfolios and cross-licensing agreements (actual and potential) mean they usually don't have to worry about an endless train of trivial patents posing an existential threat to every line of product development. The rise of patent trolls has meant that the pain of software patents is distributed more equitably. And, of course, theoretically this makes it easier for individuals and small companies to monetize patents. But patent trolls also pose a unique problem for smaller players because the ability of big companies to threaten small players is limited by laws and regulations that restrain anti-competitive behavior. Patent trolls almost by definition aren't subject to such restraints. Thus, while most large corporations lobby against patent trolls, it's not uncommon for them to sell to NPEs patents that they couldn't easily prosecute themselves. Patent trolls make it easier for everybody to monetize patents, but in practice it's the small players that arguably get the short end of the stick.
kinghtown 6y ago
Your response begs the question wether you work for a patent troll. Not seriously suggesting that, but come on: 1. They are user hostile. They add no value to the world. Only hinder technology and make life worse for the public. 2. Has any patent troll ever taken their court settlements to actually produce anything? 3. Anyone who knows anything about them only views them as blood sucking leeches. 4. HN loves to paint Apple as Satan but at least they bring quality products to market.

2bitencryption 6y ago

> U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder in Tyler, Texas whoah, isn't that infamously patent troll capital of the world?

confiq 6y ago
yes it is: https://www.vox.com/2017/5/23/15678290/patent-trolls-eastern-texas-supreme-court https://www.vox.com/2017/5/23/15678290/patent-trolls-eastern...

swiley 6y ago

What fresh hell is this? Wouldn't quake violate this patent?

olliej 6y ago
Even the uspto said the patents weren’t actually patentable but the judge said the jury should not be allowed to know that

Erlangen 6y ago

The patent system is crazy. It reminds me this, "patent lawsuit against GNOME", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21071699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21071699

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]