Patent Troll VirnetX Awarded $626M In Damages From Apple (arstechnica.com) 134
Tackhead writes: Having won a $200M judgement against Microsoft in 2010, lost a $258M appeal against Cisco in 2013, and having beaten Apple for $368M in 2012, only to see the verdict overturned in 2014, patent troll VirnetX is back in the news, having been awarded $626M in damages arising from the 2012 Facetime patent infringement case against Apple.
Require that patents be defended (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Require that patents be defended (Score:5, Insightful)
instead of defend, it should be 'use'. unused patent just stifles innovation. you wanna keep it, use it.
Re:Require that patents be defended (Score:4, Insightful)
That devalues the concept of an idea and intellectual property on the whole.
Not that I think that's a bad idea, just that it would result in a fundamental change to how modern civilisation works.
Hmm I should patent the concept.
Re:Require that patents be defended (Score:4, Insightful)
The concept of intellectual property is just a sick idea of the lawyer class to tap the wealth of innovation... at the cost of others.
Everyone worth her salt is standing on the shoulders of giants, and *knowing* it. I owe far more to Galileo and Newton and Leibnitz than I owe to Apple or Samsung or Microsoft.
Re:Require that patents be defended (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? If your expertise isn't running a manufacturing company/marketing department but you spend your time coming up with good ideas that someone else can use to do so, why should you work for free? Are you saying working with your hands/mouth is more valuable than working with your mind?
Re: (Score:2)
If your expertise isn't running a manufacturing company and you are developing software (as I am) you don't need patents either.
In fact, patent shit is an obstacle for me, with legal department going on "OMG open source, PATENT ALARM" every now and then.
(they do have a point, when you buy commercial stuff, if it infridges, it's seller's problem, kind of "troll protection")
Let me put it this way: there is NO "multi million investment" into actual software that benefits from software patents.
Most of US hardw
Re: (Score:2)
What about Samsung getting sued (I think it was successful) by Apple for designs that Android violates? Also: just because they can't successfully win a case against you doesn't mean they can't file then get you to settle rather than run up the expense of defending.
Re: (Score:2)
"you spend your time coming up with good ideas that someone else can use to do so, why should you work for free?"
Don't work for free. Just work for whatever you arranged in a contract.
"Are you saying working with your hands/mouth is more valuable than working with your mind?"
No. I'm saying that unless you agreed in contract a compensation for your hard work, nobody owes you nothing for your hard work.
Re: (Score:2)
I build a house without a contract. If you like my house and want it you have to pay me for it. Similarly if I know how to do something you don't and you want me to show you how I can demand payment for it. Patents are just a bank for your ideas. Rather than having everyone keep their ideas to themselves and have society take the risk that they'll get hit by a bus before they find someone willing to pay the amount they want (which no single buyer might be able to), or for something that needs it to come up
Re: (Score:2)
"I build a house without a contract. If you like my house and want it you have to pay me for it."
*If* I want the house. Nobody owes you nothing just for having built the house.
"Patents are just a bank for your ideas."
Unluckily, no, it's not "just" a bank for your ideas. On one hand, no, patents never have been about ideas, but about implementations. On the other hand, somehow you have an upper hand even if I reach to the same implementation by myself.
"Otherwise all the smart people that come up with idea
Re: (Score:2)
If I have a patent you don't have to pay me. You just can't use my ideas without paying me: come up with your own.
The patent holder only has the upper hand if they came up with the idea first. You/your employer could have saved yourself a bunch of time by looking for solution to your problem and licensing it from the patent holder rather than burn months re-inventing the wheel. The same thing happens with copyrights, trademarks etc. I can put fizzy water into a bottle too I just can't put it in a red and wh
Re: (Score:1)
....I read somewhere that even within the patent system it seems that most patents have a duplicate from someone inventing the same thing at the same time.
Hundredth monkey patents. Yeah it's a problem...
Re: (Score:2)
A potential solution would be to require the patent holder to license the patent for a "reasonable" amount. Instead of having to fight in court to get a patent invalidated you could instead go to arbitration to settle on what "reasonable" is in your particular case. It sucks because yeah the first one to the patent office gets a reward but at least the others would still be able to use their parallel invention.
Re: Idea Police (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Short of the halting problem basically that means you deserve no compensation for anything that can be computed. Which means basically economics, accounting, banking, at least some forms of investing, lots of engineering, lots of science etc.
Also Mr. Coward states the opposite of my contention with no reason and you never actually implement the working details of those ideas, then you deserve NO compensation." He basically says: if you are an engineer working for a company that builds stuff you should get p
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual Property should be a two part concept. The idea, and the implementation of that idea in a commercial product.
Used to be for a mechanical patent, you had to build a working model. Why should people be able to dream up stuff that they can't possibly do, only to profit when someone actually does it and commercializes it?
Re: (Score:1)
Good. I think no software patents should be allowed.
It's all mathematics, and math should NOT be patented.
Re: Require that patents be defended (Score:3)
Re: Require that patents be defended (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not supposed to be able to patent an idea, you're only supposed to be able to patent an invention ... far too many patents are really little more than the idea of "doing something kinda like this".
So many of them describe a concept already in use, or which is exactly the same in the physical world ... but digital.
And then seemingly it becomes a magic device whereby you can claim that "a system and methodology for doing something which is commonplace, but involves a computer and a network" is a unique invention.
In the many years I've been aware of software patents, the ones I've seen more or less boil down to software analogs of things we've already seen, and stuff many of us would have learned in a CS degree (and which was already common practice).
Then you just write it in fancy sounding bullshit, and pass it off as a unique invention -- and the morons at the patent office, whose only real criteria is if the checks clear, will rubber stamp it and suddenly you have a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you just write it in fancy sounding bullshit, and pass it off as a unique invention -- and the morons at the patent office, whose only real criteria is if the checks clear, will rubber stamp it and suddenly you have a patent.
To a great degree this is actually true. The patent officers don't care about the checks that much, though. It just creates a lot of work for them when they reject a patent claim and the lawyers of the people applying for the patent, i.e. prosecuting (that's the technical term) it prove them wrong and get their rejections overturned. It also shows badly on the record of the patent officer if their rejections tend to not hold up. The lawyers usually have more resources and motivation to make the patent pass
Re: (Score:2)
It's all mathematics, and math should NOT be patented.
Machines are all atoms, and you can't patent atoms. Does that mean that no machines should be patented?
Re:Require that patents be defended (Score:5, Informative)
Patents were created to benefit the public, not the inventor.
The value of patents is in the sharing of inventions for public use, the cost of patents is a period of protection given to the inventor.
Requiring inventions to be used by the patent owner or else allow use by the public seems perfectly in line with the concept of patents.
Re: (Score:3)
"Patents were created to benefit the public, not the inventor."
Patents gave investors a monopoly of specified term on use of the idea. What they vitally gave to the public was revelation of method. Before patent was invented, innovators simply kept their ideas secret for as long as possible. The Murano glassmakers kept their advantage in the market for centuries by having their own staff of ninjas fan out across Europe, killing off anyone else who used their methods.
With the coming of industry, trade secret
Re: (Score:2)
Trade secret was not replaced by patent. They serve similar but purposes but have different trade-offs. If you talk to a IP attorney, they will tell you that most inventions and discoveries are kept as trade secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
Trade secrets still exist, but in general they were - and still are - a staple of an artisanal world, not industry.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. Go talk to a patent attorney who works in "industry" as you call it. I work for a Fortune 500 and I can tell you it is 99% trade secrets. Most things aren't worth patenting.
Re: (Score:1)
Still, "Patents were created to benefit the public, not the inventor.":
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
No word on "let's let inventor become really really rich".
Re: (Score:1)
No word on "let's let inventor become really really rich".
Wow, obviously you only read the part of the quote that you bolded. Allow me to remedy that:
Exclusive Right means they can do whatever they want with it. This includes becoming really really rich, declaring it public domain, or not using it at all. That's what the word EXCLUSIVE means.
Re: (Score:2)
You confuse "purpose" with "trade-off".
"Becoming really really rich" is a possible side-effect of the "exclusive rights" trade-off to let the general public use those inventions after the "limited times" has expired.
All the original patent rules support this idea; inventions should be well-described (so they will be easy to copy); inventions should be special enough that the general public would NEED access to the documentation in order to reproduce it; the invention should be an invention, not merely a dis
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension problems...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
is the objective;
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
is the means by which they hope to achieve it.
No, it's not a trade-off.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem quite dense. The "objective" is the purpose. The "means" is not the objective.
Yes, I'm aware of what all those words mean, and that's how I was using them.
I think my point was that it's ("we do <means> to achieve <objective>"), not the other way around. The objective of the system is to promote science and arts, not make people rich.
And the problem isn't that we're not doing the means, it's that we're doing it too much--too much protection such that it never *stops* being protected, which kills the whole objective to which lip service is being paid.
I've read this over so
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably the reasoning is that without protection and being given directly the ability to profit off their inventions,* inventors wouldn't bother inventing?
* in theory. cf. large corp "patenting around you" for all possible applications, waiting for it to expire, then doing it themselves, while being protected by team of expensive lawyers
Re: Require that patents be defended (Score:2)
That devalues the concept of an idea and intellectual property on the whole.
Well, not by much but I suppose it's a start. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
That devalues the concept of an idea and intellectual property on the whole.
Does it? the whole idea of "Intellectual Property" is to give the creator time to develop, market and possibly profit from new ideas. If you aren't using it then it defeats the purpose of the protection, since all you are doing is stopping others from developing similar new ideas.
Use it or lose it seems like fair approach.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
developing and licensing is using the patent. as you said, trolls simply wait for others to encroach. that's a completely wrong approach.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the issue is that patents are granted for stupid, unoriginal things. If only good, unique ideas were allowed then this would not be the same issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people have ideas that they don't want to own a business in. These companies are full of lawyers usually. Lawyers generally speaking don't have the expertise or desire to develop a company that markets a Face Time/Skype product. By use I think it should just require that you don't sit on the patent you actively offer it for licensing. Of course the whole idea of patents is that they expire so it doesn't "stifle" innovation any more than it would if say MS got the patent and never licensed it to anyo
Re: (Score:2)
instead of defend, it should be 'use'. unused patent just stifles innovation. you wanna keep it, use it.
Wasn't there originally supposed to be an exploitation requirement for patents? Why did that die?
Re: (Score:1)
instead of defend, it should be 'use'. unused patent just stifles innovation. you wanna keep it, use it.
Some patents really SHOULDN'T be used . I.E. " New advancement for inceased nuclear kill ratio - ten cities attacked at once. (Patent pending)"... ;-)
I think defending this is quite suffficient, thank you
Re:Require that patents be defended (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe we shouldn't have software patents at all, nor award patents on stupid, trivial stuff. Or, since it is rather hard to define exactly what is trivial and what isn't, we could adjust the duration of a patent instead. Invest a few billion in discovering a new medicine, and yeah maybe you deserve a couple of patents with a long validity. Spend a few million on a think tank to come up with good ideas, and you'd deserve some patents with a duration that depends on how good those ideas are. Be the first to come up with a clever little algo in the course of your normal work, and maybe you ought to get a patent as well even if it's for something more or less "obvious to someone skilled in the arts"... but only one valid for a few years.
Re:Require that patents be defended (Score:5, Insightful)
Most patents on software are fundamentally wrong the way they are being issued.
A patent should be about your brilliant invention of how to do something, in detail, that nobody else could figure out. It should not be about what to do, without any details on the how.
The patent on the steam engine did not read "a machine that produces torque". Everyone could see that such a machine would be useful, the devil is in figuring out how to build it. But a lot of software (and design) patents are of the "a button that makes you do this cool thing" kind. They leave out the actual technical details, which is why they are so broad and abusable.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar solution, yes. See my comment above - a working model should be included in any patent application. And I can take your model and use it if I pay you, or I can invent my own without paying you. That was the whole idea of the patent system, wasn't it?
Software patents make the "I can invent my own" impossible. And that is where they went wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
A patent should be about your brilliant invention of how to do something, in detail, that nobody else could figure out. It should not be about what to do, without any details on the how.
That, combined with patent examiners knowledgeable enough to recognize and reject software patents that consist of going from requirements to design by gluing together well-know techniques, would eliminate the real problems. It wouldn't satisfy RMS, but it would limit software patents to the extremely rare ones that are truly novel and non-obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem (or, if you prefer, great part) with this line of reasoning is that if you follow it to its logical conclusion, it strongly suggests that what you would need to submit as a "software patent" is, in fact, the source code, at least for the portion of the program that you wish to patent.
Of course, we already have intellectual property protection for source code: copyright. So should there be software patents at all? Or should software patents replace copyrightable source code? Or should there be so
Re: (Score:2)
The problem (or, if you prefer, great part) with this line of reasoning is that if you follow it to its logical conclusion, it strongly suggests that what you would need to submit as a "software patent" is, in fact, the source code, at least for the portion of the program that you wish to patent.
Correct.
Wasn't it that to get a patent you had to submit a working prototype or model? The same should be required for software.
Of course, we already have intellectual property protection for source code: copyright. So should there be software patents at all? Or should software patents replace copyrightable source code? Or should there be some kind of hybrid system, where you can have your source code patented, or copyrighted, but not both...?
I don't care, really. But if you claim the protection of two completely different laws with different time periods, intentions and consequences for the same thing, then there's something wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
trolls can come in all forms (Score:2)
I get the argument against the variety that sit on patents and wait for someone to infringe and then pounce. They wait till you have a huge proven market till they sue so that they can get the highest "license" fee possible. I could be wrong but it seems to me that people call anyone a troll that doesn't practice. I think that is plain silly. Do we complain about commodity traders that sit on millions of pork belly features but don't own a bacon factory?
For law changes: I think these companies that invest i
Re: (Score:2)
"Do we complain about commodity traders that sit on millions of pork belly features but don't own a bacon factory?"
We would have a right to complain if commodity traders sat on millions of pounds of physical bacon. What they actually trade is the future right to buy or sell specified quantities of the product. That way, a farmer who breeds pigs can pre-sell pork at a known price months from now, insured against the uncertainty of the market now to then.
Re: (Score:2)
They wait till you have a huge proven market till they sue so that they can get the highest "license" fee possible.
In theory, that isn't allowed - look up the term laches. If somebody sued Google today for something like "a web-based email program that lets users tag messages", the judge would severely limit damages, since there's no reasonable excuse for the patent owner not to have known for years that Google was doing this.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a time window for actual usage of a patent in a marketed product would be a useful check. If your patent isn't in a marketed product within, say, five years of issuance it would become public domain, and if it stops being used in a marketed product after 5 years it would also become public domain.
I think part of the problem also could not just be patent trolls as we know them, but companies like IBM that attack a technology sector with R&D and obtain dozens of patents they have no intention of
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, IP needs to realize that software is special.
There are three traditional domains of IP. You have trademarks, which are protections used in the conduct of trade, copyrights used to protect creative works (used by humans and enjoyed by humans) and patents, of which you have utility (things used to make other things) and design (things with a decorative touch).
Software is none of these - it is both a creative work - done and enjoyed by humans, as well as thing used to make other things. This mean
East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:East Texas patent troll capitol of america .. (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, serious now. Why this particular district is so popular for patent trolls? Easy to bought corrupt judges? Or too stupid judge to realize the malicious intent of the troll? Both?
I can answer this, having been through the wringer wrought by a patent troll.
Almost all the major patent toll companies have a small presence in the county, so as to be able to file and force the suit to go through Marshall Texas.
The 12 hours I was deposed was probably the worst 12 hours of my life, and the 30 days of rigorous prep I had to do beforehand was just awful.
Re: (Score:2)
If the district is chosen based on patent trolls' desires, you would think they would pick the district where they prevail the most often.
Re: (Score:2)
But apparently not enough pressure.
"trolls" got teeth (Score:1)
Calling someone a troll just because you want to steal their IP seams to be all the rage these days....
Re: (Score:1)
I run all my IP under "trade secret" status. much better since you don't have to disclose any of the details of how you do things.
Also don't do any business in the US "because* of their stupid software patent laws (the market may be large, but the return on investment is too low to bother putting any effort in there)
But that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft Apple Google and IBM "intentional infringe" prolifically on the vast majority of their products.
Which is one of the reasons I would never want the
Re: (Score:2)
But do you actually produce and ship a product? That's exactly what these east Texas clowns do NOT do. They just sit around spamming the USPTO with any random idea that they think of in the hopes that someone somewhere else has the same idea, but actually uses it, so that they can sue. It's one thing if you were actually using that patent, then $bigevilcorporation comes along, copies said product, and puts you out of business. But that's not what happens in east Texas. It's just a lawsuit factory.
If th
Re: (Score:1)
We deliver high value services to high value products. Services only my companies can provide because only my companies have access to the underlying tech.
These companies have a product - which they paid for - the exclusive rights to use a specific invention, which they licence to companies rather than the original inventor being the only one who has the rights to use it.
That isn't trolling, its profiting from the IP system the US built for itself.
R&D in software isn't as expensive as R&D in hardwar
Greed. The oldest profession (Score:5, Interesting)
Only in America can "Patent Troll" become a legal multi-billion dollar industry, and yet prostitution remains illegal.
How ironic, since both are in the business of fucking people.
Re: (Score:2)
Too true, Fucking is legal, Selling is legal, Why isn't selling fucking legal?
Nailed it. Literally.
Re: (Score:1)
Never got haiku as an art form. I always imagined it, like fucking prostitutes, was better in the original Japanese.
Re: (Score:1)
Shooting is legal
People are legal
Why isn't shooting people legal?
oops
Re: (Score:2)
America 101 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I missed the chapter in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" on software patents. I can't seem to find it.
Re: (Score:1)
Crap patents. (Score:3)
And somehow I doubt that facetime uses server names like facetime.apple.scom. Case should have been tossed on those grounds alone.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'd rather pay than play (Score:3)
The fact that M$ and Oracle and IBM and all the rest of the "victims" of "trolls" would rather pay the trolls than do what is intellectually ethcially and morally right- lobby Congress to ban software patents (and yes trolls, those ARE a definable thing) tells you something. They'd rather endure the billions lost to trolls than have to compete in the open marketplace, without their trivial patents. If they didn't have this barrier to entrance and the threat of crushing legal judgements, then they'd have to compete on the basis of the goodness of their product offerings.
Obviously, such a "disaster" is monetarily more frigthening to them than losing to billions to trolls.
It gives you some idea of the amount of market supression and concomitant loss of innovation the consumer is experiencing without ever knowing it.
Believe me, lot's of "agreements to be acquired" by small companies are in reality software-patent blackmail- you can sell us your comapny, or we can go to court.
It how they make sure that all innovation accrues to them, and they retain all real financial and political power in the world.
Parodies (Score:2)
Re:Karma (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you love patent trolls or do you just want to hurt Apple so much?
Like it or not, Apple actually makes good products, maybe they are overpriced, maybe they don't fit your expectations but there is no denying they have some technical merit. And while I would like them to lose against another innovative company or for consumer rights there is no way I want them to lose against a company whose whole purpose is to exploit the patent system for personal profit without contributing anything meaningful.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You seem to have forgotton about the "rounded corners" thing. This is one patent troll fighting another, for the benefit of the lawyers of both sides. There are no good guys here.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you love patent trolls or do you just want to hurt Apple so much?
The only patent troll is the patent office, the one that gives official government right for all those other supposed "patent trolls" to actually take people to court. Without that, there would be no frivolous patent lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can 't we encourage psychopaths like antiabortionists to engage in violent acts against patent trolls? Let them fear for their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can 't we encourage psychopaths...to engage in violent acts against patent trolls?
Professional courtesy.