Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Apple

Apple Loses Patent Case For FaceTime Tech, Owes $368 Million 139

Posted by Soulskill
from the we-invented-the-transmission-of-data dept.
beeudoublez writes "Apple was ordered to pay $368 million today to a software company named VirnetX over patents related to Apple's FaceTime technology. Apple engineers testified they didn't pay attention to any patents when building FaceTime. 'The jury, which had sat through the five-day trial, ruled that Apple infringed two patents: one for a method of creating a virtual private network (VPN) between computers, and another for solving DNS security issues. ... It's not the first time VirnetX has won a payout from a major tech firm: the company bagged $105.7m from Microsoft two years ago, and it may not be the last either. VirnetX has a separate case against Apple pending with the International Trade Commission and it has court cases against Cisco, Avaya and Siemens scheduled for trial next year.'" It's not all bad news for Apple today, though — according to Ars, they've won a new patent for a rounded rectangle (D670,286).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Loses Patent Case For FaceTime Tech, Owes $368 Million

Comments Filter:
  • So f*cked up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:19PM (#41911323)

    The Patent Office should be dismantled (along with the TSA)

    • Re:So f*cked up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pecosdave (536896) * on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:23PM (#41911363) Homepage Journal

      As much as I dislike Apple - for being patent trolls and bullies - it makes me sick to my stomach this happened to them. I mean I enjoy the suffering and all, it's just a really bad thing for the tech world in general. The patent trolling, not Apple suffering.

      • Re:So f*cked up (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:35PM (#41911483)

        Apple suffering over this, means *we all* suffer. To Apple, this is just raising the bar to market entry. $368 millions is peanuts to them. Effectively, this just means a steep artificial fee at the troll gate, which effectively supports the dinosaurs just fine. They don't care that they're sucking the life-blood of the economy. So if reform should start somewhere, it should start with the law and financials.

        • Re:So f*cked up (Score:5, Insightful)

          by pecosdave (536896) * on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:39PM (#41911547) Homepage Journal

          In this particular case Apple suffering may help us all.

          Remember the famous patent troll of recent past Amazon? Now Amazon is actually starting to suggest patents are going overboard and trolls need to be shut down. If Apple gets on the losing end of enough of these battles they may actually join hands with Amazon and *gasp* Samsung when they've had enough to lobby to fix the problem.

          Until then troll them and the other patent troll companies until they have a change of heart.

          • Do you know what a patent troll is? A patent troll is someone who owns a patent BUT DOES NOT MAKE ANYTHING WITH IT. It sounds like this applies to VirnetX. But Apple makes things with the technology they have a patent for, thus they would not be a patent troll.
            • Re:So f*cked up (Score:5, Informative)

              by pecosdave (536896) * on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @05:05PM (#41911807) Homepage Journal

              Fine.

              Patent abuser then.

              Let the trolls attack the abusers.

            • Re:So f*cked up (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @06:28PM (#41912729)
              Bullshit. Apple uses their patents to prevent competition by refusing to license them even though they are for ridiculous things like rectangles and such. If you're preventing innovation by using patents for your own commercial gain, you're a patten troll. There are many ways to do this, apple is very good at their brand. VirnetX is very good at theirs. The fact that 2 patent trolls are battling it out doesn't make one the good guy. The sad state of affairs is that our system is so broken its turning companies that really don't want to be a part of this nonsense into trolls themselves. It's getting to be the only way to do business anymore.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Incorrect. A patent owner is under no obligation to license. In fact, the whole point of the patent is to give a limited term monopoly. The revenue source of a patent troll is through legal actions based on forced licensing or settlements of patents it has acquired. This is not the same as pure IP companies that develop technologies for others to license but do not produce any products or services themselves, such as ARM and MIPS.

                • by DeadCatX2 (950953)

                  In fact, the whole point of the patent is to give a limited term monopoly.

                  In exchange for making the invention public. One would assume that making the invention public isn't intended to prevent competition altogether.

                • by Cyberax (705495)
                  Actually, in many countries a patent holder might be forced to license their patents. It's not a simple process, but it's usually possible in cases of bullshit like asking $2 for overscroll patents.
                • Incorrect. A patent owner is under no obligation to license. In fact, the whole point of the patent is to give a limited term monopoly. The revenue source of a patent troll is through legal actions based on forced licensing or settlements of patents it has acquired.

                  The legal professionals running the legal system have chosen to implement certain text in the Constitution in this fashion. Just because the legal professionals running the legal system have chosen to implement a certain part of the Constitution in a particular way, does not mean that they necessarily have the legitimate authority to do so.

                  Recall that once upon a time, legal professionals in parts of the USA authorized children of African-Americans to be enslaved: do we wish to consider this an act that t

              • Re:So f*cked up (Score:4, Informative)

                by greg1104 (461138) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @10:53PM (#41915135) Homepage

                Patent troll [wikipedia.org] is only applicable to companies who lobby patent suits but don't make things; usage stretching behind that is sloppy terminology. The reason for that distinction is that patent troll companies are normally a non-practising entity (NPE), which lets them sue without fear of a counter-suit. That's what makes them so troublesome. When Apple and Samsung battle, ultimately both have products covered by patents held by the other. While Apple may not like licensing their patents, it's possible for them to be forced into cross-licensing with another company that builds real products, or both companies can be deadlocked and unable to sell. That possibility isn't there on a true patent troll company. They only sue for infringement and never need to license to cover their own products, because they don't have any.

            • Do you know what a patent troll is?

              Let's clear that up right now. The proper technical term for what Apple and Amazon do is "Patent Thuggery". Let's not get sidetracked on issues of whether they practice their patents or not, but whether or not they are thugs.

          • I agree that there's a growing opinion in the industry that things need to change, but I don't think this is the solution. If lawmakers form their policies by only observing the words and actions of major corporations, they will in turn enact policies that favor the same large organizations while in the meantime, the small businesses and start-ups that don't have the capital to start out will get drowned out. In effect, we'll be back where we were in the 90s and early 2000s (if it hasn't even yet stopped) w

          • by jythie (914043)
            Loosing end 'enough'? Have you seen Apple's litigation history? Apple couldn't litigate themselves out of a wet paper bag 99% of the time.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          Apple suffering over this, means *we all* suffer. To Apple, this is just raising the bar to market entry. $368 millions is peanuts to them. Effectively, this just means a steep artificial fee at the troll gate, which effectively supports the dinosaurs just fine. They don't care that they're sucking the life-blood of the economy. So if reform should start somewhere, it should start with the law and financials.

          Its always hillarious when I see people on the internet try and give some grade school armchair comment and it just falls completely flat and makes absolutely no insight at all. Its just a bunch of blubbering that somehow sounds intelligent, savvy and informative in their heads while to everyone else its not much more than charlie browns teacher could muster.

          And for the record, if you think ANYONE anywhere in the world regardless of how rich or poor they are would say "360 million? Thats peanuts" then you a

      • not quite (Score:4, Interesting)

        by poetmatt (793785) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:46PM (#41911635) Journal

        live by the sword, die by the sword.

        Patent trolls suck, but apple has no defense against being victimized for it when they're trying to do the exact same thing. In fact, apple is worse because they have billions of dollars to shut down entire companies with. A troll does not.

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          Of course, the problem is that pretty much every major company has to get involved in patent lawsuits.

          Microsoft has been in and out of litigation for decades. Motorolla is in there playing.

          I'm pretty sure if you started a new company to make a product, you wouldn't get anywhere in a lot of cases, because you'd be sued as soon as you started making any money.

          It's hard not to see this as general stupidity of the whole system -- and I no longer care if they're supposed to be the good guys or the bad guys. Th

          • by poetmatt (793785)

            Of course, the problem is that pretty much every major company has to get involved in patent lawsuits.

            No, they don't. It's a perception, which has been proven wrong by courts almost continually, if people read what courts actually say.

            Whether it's potentially lucrative in the short term only? Yes. Have courts basically disallowed it in general? Also yes.

            I'm staying out of development when it comes to technology because I know any ideas I have will make me be sued off my ass before I can even start a busine

          • Name one lawsuit that has been initiated by Google?

        • I believe the word you are looking for is extortion. VirnetX is trying to extort money from Apple, Cisco Systems, Astra Technologies, and NEC Corporation....they are in no way trying to stop Apple from making products, nor is Apple.

          This company would still be suing Apple, if Apple decided not to sue Samsung.

          Moron.
          • by tepples (727027)

            they are in no way trying to stop Apple from making products

            If the sum of the royalties due to all the different patent holders exceeds the difference between wholesale and cost of goods sold, then yes, they are trying to stop Apple from making products.

            • by Applekid (993327)

              Apple isn't competing on price, and arguably never have. If the costs were raised $XX per unit to cover some license, they'd pass it along, and I don't think I'm being unrealistic in that most people in the market for an Apple device would not change their mind. While, yes, customers do like a deal and would grumble about paying more, but if Apple customers were shopping on price, they would have turned towards more commodity-priced hardware alternatives.

              • If the costs were raised $XX per unit to cover some license, they'd pass it along

                Unless the royalties are a percentage of a product's wholesale price. If enough patent holders come out of the proverbial woodwork to bid up the royalty total to 90 percent of wholesale, it'll be kind of hard to pass along a tenfold price increase.

        • live by the sword, die by the sword.

          Patent trolls suck, but apple has no defense against being victimized for it when they're trying to do the exact same thing. In fact, apple is worse because they have billions of dollars to shut down entire companies with. A troll does not.

          I can't name one company that Apple shut down due to patent trolling. Can you?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by interval1066 (668936)
        That Apple completely ignored absolutely legitimate tech patents but "invented" a rectangle with rounded corners makes you sad for Apple? I think I'm sick to my stomach...
        • Re:So f*cked up (Score:5, Informative)

          by tricorn (199664) <sep@shout.net> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @05:41PM (#41912189) Journal

          That's a design patent, which really has little to do with "real" patents. It's closer to a trademark than a normal patent.

          • by HiThere (15173)

            Sorry, but if you're being attacked, a design patent is very similar to a real patent. You're guilty if you infringe even if you didn't know about it, the limits of what is covered is vague and intentionally obscured, penalties can be huge, and defending yourself is rediculously expensive.

        • So true. The fact that they ignore the patents of others while completely ignoring those of others should honestly have a negative impact on their case when they attack other companies. Sad that it hasn't....

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          It is THIS, this right here, that just blows my damned mind, this "ballclub mentality" when it comes to large multinational corps. name the company, Apple, Google, MSFT, and I can provide link after link of SERIOUSLY douchebag behavior from these companies, yet there is a large section of the populace that if it is "their" company will go "la la la, can't hear you!" and root for them like its the fucking Cubs, I just don't GET that.

          Is it some sort of fucked up variant of buyer's remorse, where they have t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't think the patent office should be dismantled. But there needs to be some reform.

      All we see here on Slashdot and the rest of the media are large corporations and law firms abusing the system. We don't see any stories about the lone inventor working in his garage, patenting his invention, starting a company, and creating lots of jobs while getting rich. Dean Kamen comes to mind as an example of the patent system and the American Inventor dream working - as far as I can tell.

      So, please let's not throw

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Nobody at the patent office appears to have any expertise with a functional system for promoting invention and avoiding all the piles of crap that are stifling innovation, clogging the justice system, etc. so I think it's perfectly reasonable that the patent office been dismantled.

        All patents older than 20 years should be eliminated along with the office, and a new agency put in place with sane rules to review the rest (invalidating many of them) and new ones going forward.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Don't patents already expire after ~18 years now, or was it extended?

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          All patents older than 20 years should be eliminated

          Since patents only last 20 years, all patents older than 20 years have already been eliminated.

        • by greg1104 (461138)

          "A functional system for promoting invention and avoiding all the piles of crap that stifle innovation". Add a block diagram and it sounds like you've got yourself a patent right there.

          I've always wanted to file a business process patent for patent trolling, and then sue all the patent troll companies for violating it.

      • by JDG1980 (2438906)

        All we see here on Slashdot and the rest of the media are large corporations and law firms abusing the system. We don't see any stories about the lone inventor working in his garage, patenting his invention, starting a company, and creating lots of jobs while getting rich. Dean Kamen comes to mind as an example of the patent system and the American Inventor dream working - as far as I can tell.

        But that's not what the patent system is supposed to be about. The purpose of the patent system is not to reward

    • ....except when it rules in favour of Apple, then you should send them gift baskets and puppies. I am sure you wanted to say.

    • I love this " another for solving DNS security issues" so Apple fixed this companies DNS security issue and they sued them for patent infringement. I am not a big Apple fan but this is messed up.
  • by mrbluze (1034940) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:21PM (#41911345) Journal
    is like throwing stones in a glass house. It's too early to say whether Apple is heading for a wall, as many predict, but relying on patents to protect their markets instead of functionality, interoperability and build quality (which have been Apple's strengths recently) is a flawed approach.
    • by pecosdave (536896) * on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:25PM (#41911389) Homepage Journal

      I took this picture while I was in Manhattan this summer [google.com]. I took the picture due to that saying, there was a part of me laughing hysterically at the glass houses thing.

    • It would be nice if enough stones get thrown that everyone's glass houses are broken. Apple has the cash to survive it, and we need real reform with patents to move forward. Let Apple be one of those who start this process of breaking down the current system.
    • Yeah because Apple decided to stop making iPhones, iPads, and Macs and live off their patents....oh wait....
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Apple has another motivation to protect their patents. All their competitors have valuable technology related patents, many of them essential for implementing mobile phone standards. Apple only has a bunch of design patents that it doesn't really want to license anyway and may be invalid, so are basically worthless to anyone else. That leaves them vulnerable to paying huge amounts of cash for the use of standards essential patents.

    • It's too early to say whether Apple is heading for a wall, as many predict...

      I don't think it is too early at all. Just scan the comments to media articles on Apple's recent product introductions. They are just full of comments of the form "I am an Apple fan, I have apple products X, Y and Z, I love them but I am not going buy this Apple product because I disagree with their patent suits, their profiteering on the backs of oppressed workers, and thumbing their noses at EPEAT." Oh, and "this thing costs too much". And "but I just bought the iPad 3, I'm so upset". Easy to verify, you

    • by Xest (935314)

      Apple's stock has lost 20% of it's value in the last 6 weeks alone. This is, in monetary terms, a decrease of over $130bn in value:

      http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL#symbol=aapl;range=20120917,20121107;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined [yahoo.com];

      Their legal strategy is now beginning to fall apart and they've not innovated in over 2 years now, offering only minor updates on their products. It'll be interesting to see what happens regarding the appe

  • by Penguinisto (415985) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:22PM (#41911351) Journal

    Yes, it's good to see a patent pest get what's coming to 'em, but consider... the plaintiff was nothing more than a patent troll.

    Personally, *ALL* software patents should die.

    Good luck getting anyone in power to agree to that, though. :(

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      Good luck getting anyone in power to agree to that, though.

      How about this strategy:
      1. Get major tech companies losing big bucks to patent cases.
      2. Major tech companies bribe^H lobby congress to change the law so they won't lose big bucks again.

      The effect of the trolls has been that there are now organizations with lots to lose, previously kept in check by Mutually Assured Destruction, that now have to actually deal with the patent concept that had previously been used only to smack down start-ups that refused to play nice with them.

    • The Patent Troll is the Robin Hood in this case. Apple is not a friendly business. Microsoft is far from being it too. I wish the EFF would make up trivial stuff and patent it for suing evil corporations later on. So that they could give the monis back to the developers.
    • by Chewbacon (797801)
      I think all of these cases should be thrown out unless you are actively manufacturing, selling, or perhaps supporting the said patent. Other than that, you are blatantly stifling innovation. And as to Apple's defense: we didn't know? Seriously?? I hope more companies use that one on them.
    • Yes, it's good to see a patent pest get what's coming to 'em, but consider... the plaintiff was nothing more than a patent troll.

      Sorry man, but I just don't have it in me not to be happy about this turn of events.

      This is, indeed, poetic justice. We should hope for more it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Do some real business reforms and make everyone happy.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      That would require pissing off the people who paid for his reelection campaign, though he can't be reelected again so he might as well do something useful now.

      Hell, Bush didn't give a fuck during his second term and it showed. I'm just hoping Obama actually cares a little bit and doesn't send us further down the shitter.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Penguinisto (415985)

      Do some real business reforms and make everyone happy.

      Fat chance of that happening.

      At risk of sounding trollish, and no matter what your personal ideology on the matters, Obama got re-elected by pushing for as many niche issues as he possibly could - gay marriage, abortion, unions, you-name-it.

      He's got enough to do towards keeping those constituencies happy (even though he's lame-duck, his party isn't), and isn't going to have much time towards doing anything beyond that and the day-to-day stuff.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojoNO@SPAMworld3.net> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @07:03PM (#41913101) Homepage

        Obama got re-elected by pushing for as many niche issues as he possibly could - gay marriage, abortion, unions, you-name-it.

        How are any of those niche issues? Anyone who works has an interest in unions. All women and most Christians have an interest in abortion. 5% of the population is gay and again a large number of Christians seem to care about it.

        • by sootman (158191)

          > All women and most Christians have an interest in abortion.

          My favorite old saying: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

        • How are any of those niche issues?

          Easy - let me walk you through the issues mentioned first:

          Anyone who works has an interest in unions.

          Outside of governmental employees, union participation has dropped over the years, is most likely single-digit, and is getting smaller (as a percentage) every year in the private sector. QED: niche issue.

          All women and most Christians have an interest in abortion.

          Unless the US Supreme Court overturns itself, or a new constitutional amendment is made (good luck with either), this issue is immutable insofar as the federal government is concerned. Why would someone try to promote 'defending' an activity

  • Per an Ars comment (Score:3, Informative)

    by arekin (2605525) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:36PM (#41911507)

    "Design patents are extremely narrow - you have to do your level best to copy them exactly in order to be found in infringement. Plus, they specifically cannot cover functionality - that has to be covered by a utility patent, if it's going to be protected. This design patent only protects a "portable display device" (that's the wording in the Patent itself), and only one with those specific design elements that are shown in the Patent Figures."

    With this being the case I would imagine that you shouldn't see a lot of battles about this design patent unless someone is deliberately making counterfeit iPads (and by shouldn't I mean "but probably will").

    • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @05:09PM (#41911851)

      Did you notice though, that the only part of the drawing that wasn't dotted lines was the shape? The speaker, the button, the I/O ports, even the depth were drawn in dotted lines, meaning those features weren't part of what was being patented. The only thing patented by the new patent was the basic shape of the top surface of the device. Once you consider that screen aspect ratio is going to dictate device ratio, and the fact that no one wants a 90 degree corner jabbing them in the thigh, you're pretty well guaranteed to be infringing if you make a tablet in that size range.

  • by alen (225700) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:57PM (#41911731)

    look it up, they have a few patents part of the LTE- Advanced spec where all voice will be data. their part of the patent pool is security for SIP

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, it does seem to be a legitimate company with some history in non-consumer industries. The patents also seem to be in the name of the technical director, so its probably not fair to try to tag them as patent trolls. This could turn out to be a real problem for Apple unless they can get the patent(s) invalidated ... which I presume is something that M$ tried or at least considered. Of course the claim that the apple engineers didn't look into patents is just a bs argument to avoid triple damages. As lon

  • What is the point of a legal department if patents keep getting violated. I don't care what the formal role of the legal department is but if I'm going to work on a new project for a company they better make sure it's not going to violate a patent first, other wise I don't need them.
  • so sorry but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @05:05PM (#41911805)
    Sorry but I just don't feel any pity for Apple at all...not after the $1Billion law suit they brought against Samsung for patents on trivial things like rounded corners and icon grids. What goes around, comes around.
  • What matters is that we all lost.
  • by John Hasler (414242) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @05:15PM (#41911905) Homepage

    They are really more a kind of trademark registration. They deal only with appearance and never with utility.

    • No. Don't stop calling them 'patents'. Because this one has 'brought to you by a patent lawyer' written all over it! It's as broad and vague in the scope as it can be. Look at the picture in TFA - the patent claims that the protected features on a 'portable display device' are the ones outlined by the unbroken line - and there's only one. It doesn't even mention proportions. Apple could claim infringement on any display device with a flat surface and rounded rectangular shape of any proportions.

      If you look

      • No. Don't stop calling them 'patents'. Because this one has 'brought to you by a patent lawyer' written all over it! It's as broad and vague in the scope as it can be.

        Just because you don't understand design patents doesn't mean they're broad in scope or vague. For example, you note:

        It doesn't even mention proportions.

        ... which implies that you believe that they should have mentioned specific lengths and widths. But, see 37 CFR 1.153: "No description, other than a reference to the drawing, is ordinarily required."

        That's not necessary with a design patent. Rather, the proportions are the ones shown in a figure. Break out a ruler and a calculator, and that ratio is the proportion claimed. Deviate substantia

  • by M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @05:16PM (#41911915)

    In your FACE!!

  • Has there not been a television or lcd monitor before with rounded corners? How could they get a patent for that
  • Didnr realize that QUicktime Format for graphics was acceptible. THis is getting about as ugly as Steve Jobs iYacht.

  • by SeaFox (739806) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @05:50PM (#41912283)

    Suddenly, it's becoming more clear why Apple did not, as they promised, release the information needed about the protocol to make third-party Facetime clients possible.

    They didn't truly own the rights to the methods for the connection.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Is there a coherent explanation anywhere of the "invention"? Their marketing fluff talks about secure-dns-vpns or some such nonsense, but none of the Facetime protocol analyses I've read found anything DNS or VPN related.

      (Even the "demo" video on their website only had some handwaving b.s. about automatic-secure-dns-vpns and their multi-billion dollar licensing potential.)

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is ridiculous. The fact that the Apple engineers developed FaceTime without looking at any patents should be proof that the patents do not reflect anything patentable. If another engineer independently invents the same technique, it clearly demonstrates that the invention is not non-obvious.

    The patent holder should be required to demonstrate how these patents are not obvious to one skilled in the art, with the presumption being that separate invention invalidates the patent.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Just because two smart people invent the same thing, does not mean that an invention is non-obvious. It means the invention is likely the best way to solve a particular problem.
      Just because a problem has a "best way" to solve it; doesn't mean it is unpatentable. Look at the Carmack reverse, from Doom3 fame. Really good way of solving a particular problem; turns out; Carmack invented it completely independently of Creative. Does that mean it is obvious?

  • 380 million is nothing to Apple. At least they weren't forced to apologize [thenextweb.com] again. Mea culpa!
    • They aimed too high as it is. $380 million will buy a *lot* of lawyer time for appeals and suchlike. If it was $10-$20 million it might not be worth Apple's time, but $380 million assures *years* of appeals.
  • by Impish (669369) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @07:45PM (#41913591)
    To view the Apple patent diagrams on the US patent site my browser informs me I need to run Apple Quicktime? Why isn't the patent office using PNG images?
  • From the article:

    The fruity firm was on the hook for as much as $900m, but a jury awarded a lower payout during a Texas court hearing yesterday evening, according to VirnetX's lawyers McKool Smith.

    So once again this is the yahoos in the Eastern District of Texas imposing their draconian views on the whole country. Is Apple based in Texas? Is VirnetX? No. (They're based in Nevada, according to their website.) So why the hell was this trial held in Texas? Because the bastards know that by forum-shopping they

  • I'll make billions selling pointy corners to Samsung and Google to avoid royalty fees.

    Damn, Doritos beat me to filing. Never mind.

  • and as much as I know Apple would be doing the same thing against everybody else if they had those patents, I can't help but to fell for their loss this time. Apple didn't lose. With the exception of the lawyers, we all lost.

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde

Working...