Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

111–120 of 164 posts

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

#111
post #45

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"?

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."

I believe Google has made numerous pledges not to aggressively attack others with their parents the way Apple and trolls are doing it.

I think Facebook might have also done it too - wasn't there some kind of anti-trolling pact between several major software patent holders?

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

#112
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that companies can't bought other companies and take ownership of their patents?

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.

So now, whenever they have something patent-worthy, the company first sets up a new company, then file for the patent for that new tiny company.

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

#113

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 act…

Can we just please abolish patents? Not just software patents, all of them. Can anyone give me an example of a patent issued in the last twenty years for a novel invention that then proved wildly successful and either protected the inventor from competition or even more importantly led to a lawsuit where the creator successfully beat a large company trying to copy their idea? And even if you can - is the exception outweighing the social cost of the insanity that is our immense tumor of IP lawsuits and intellectual creativity restriction that comes with it?

Fundamentally the courts are today rigged entirely for those who can afford the best lawyers and fight in a quagmire the longest. Even if you do invent something original, these large companies know they can just bleed you dry in court and ignore your patents anyway.

Yet I do not personally see anyone not being inventive or trying new ideas in the absence of a working patent system to protect their monopoly rights to their ideas. Is anyone today waking up the morning thinking "I'm not going to try new ideas because I won't be able to defend patents I file for them against megacorps". I highly doubt that. The people that create the things that are most valuable to us are products of environments that enable them to conduct the research in the first place (IE, they often don't have to do day labor to survive, or can live very comfortably on reduced work hours) rather than incentivizing "inventors" as a discipline that uses the profits of a state granted monopoly to sustain their business.

I mean, even when huge megacorps come up with novel ideas, their competitors will sick lawyers on it and find the closest approximation they can get while having the highest probability of defeating a patent violation lawsuit. And I really hope we are not writing IP law for the sole benefit of international corporations to fund an entire industry of lawyers to waste money arguing about the infringing width of a progress bar.

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

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

So as usual, Apple is lying/misleading people here. At least 'technically'.

> 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"

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

#115
post #95

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/

Bear in mind that this was a design patent, not a regular (utility) patent.

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

#117
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 governmen…

Right, I remember the controversy over Lokpal, I was following India news more then. Developed countries tend to have less overt corruption and more implicit corruption; the populace simply doesn't stand for open bribes. Chicago is probably the most overt location in the US for corruption; elsewhere it tends to look very much like "rotating door" policies, as well as police looking the other way for important people.

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

#118

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.

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.

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

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how about we hard delete all software patents since they are absolutely ridiculous? Goodbye $600mil flow charts.

But if we don't have software patents, how else will we incentivize mega-corporations like amazon to invent innovative new technologies like a 1-click checkout button?

You make a fair point. In fact, if we had even stronger software patents, facebook would have had to wait 20 years after the invention of myspace. A world with no facebook? Valhalla? It seems I need to rethink my position.

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

#120
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as usual, Apple is lying/misleading people here. At least 'technically'.

> 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"

>> They aren't sayin they have been found invalid already ..

They are saying exactly that, at least according to their press statement.

Post reply on HN