|
|
|
|
||
Re: Decent coverage in PC magazine........ Thanks for posting the link. The article is fairly good, especially by quoting from KL's recent article about why VirnetX is not a troll. I just posted the following comment: "There's no need to say Apple "allegedly" violated VirnetX' patents. Apple did violate VirnetX patents. Two juries from two trials, after hearing Apple's lawyers and witnesses, returned verdicts of infringement (which Virnetx had the burden at trial to prove) regarding two patents. After the first trial (2012), a federal judge found that there was sufficient evidence to support that verdict and entered judgment for VirnetX (also writing that Apple had engaged in "grossly misleading conduct" before the court). Apple appealed that judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which, after hearing Apple's arguments, affirmed part of the judgment (including that the patents were valid and had been infringed) and remanded the damages part of the case for new trial. That new trial took place earlier this year, consolidated with additional claims of infringement of four patents occurring since the first trial. A second jury, before a different federal judge, returned findings that Apple had not only again infringed but also that Apple had done so willfully (not surprising since two of the patents had previously been, upon trial, judicially ruled, twice, valid and infringed, which rulings Apple chose to ignore rather than honor). It is extremely unlikely that the judge in this second trial will find that there was insufficient evidence to support that second verdict of infringement, given the result of the first trial and similarity of issues and evidence. Meanwhile, VirnetX remains unable meaningfully to convert its intellectual property into revenue, by selling its Gabriel product in volume, or by licensing its technology to Apple (which to this day continues to use it, on a massive scale, without paying for it). Thank God we have a judicial branch of government and that VirnetX (unlike many other developers of innovative ideas) has been able, so far, to afford many years of extremely expensive litigation in order to obtain simply what is theirs, the exclusive right to use, and to license, their property." |
return to message board, top of board |