Apple wins VirnetX patent appeal — but one verdict awaits

The other big tech companies know the patent system is corrupt and they don't fight. They pay up, negotiate licenses, whatever they have to do to settle the damn lawsuits. Apple always fights to the bitter end, almost always loses, winds up paying up and negotiating licenses, etc. Why are non-practicing patent trolls allowed to do what they do? As usual, follow the money and lawyer's fees. It's not going to change because lawyers make the laws and they make the laws so they can make money off the laws they make.

lkrupp said:

The other big tech companies know the patent system is corrupt and they don't fight. They pay up, negotiate licenses, whatever they have to do to settle the damn lawsuits. Apple always fights to the bitter end, almost always loses, winds up paying up and negotiating licenses, etc. Why are non-practicing patent trolls allowed to do what they do? As usual, follow the money and lawyer's fees. It's not going to change because lawyers make the laws and they make the laws so they can make money off the laws they make.

Technically VirnetX isn't a patent troll any more - they released a video conferencing software in 2022…  :D

There should be a law against non practising entities (patent trolls making money off suing others) owning any patents. Only companies that would actually use the patents should be able to purchase them. 

Anilu_777 said:

There should be a law against non practising entities (patent trolls making money off suing others) owning any patents. Only companies that would actually use the patents should be able to purchase them. 

No.  This is wrong in so many ways.  Property rights are for everyone.  Patents are valuable property and lots of small inventors hold patents and need to get paid for their inventions when big companies use them.  

I wish the phrase “non practicing entity” were abolished.  It is meaningless and has no part in a reasonable discussion on patents and property rights.  

A patent is valid or not and by valuable or not, regardless of the status of the invented/owner.  Whether they personally implement the patented idea or license it to others.  

The real issue is if patents are being issued for things that shouldn’t be patentable.   

 

chadbag said:

Anilu_777 said:

There should be a law against non practising entities (patent trolls making money off suing others) owning any patents. Only companies that would actually use the patents should be able to purchase them. 

No.  This is wrong in so many ways.  Property rights are for everyone.  Patents are valuable property and lots of small inventors hold patents and need to get paid for their inventions when big companies use them.  

I wish the phrase “non practicing entity” were abolished.  It is meaningless and has no part in a reasonable discussion on patents and property rights.  

A patent is valid or not and by valuable or not, regardless of the status of the invented/owner.  Whether they personally implement the patented idea or license it to others.  

The real issue is if patents are being issued for things that shouldn’t be patentable.   

 

Your “small time inventor who deserves to get paid” story is such a tired joke.  Nearly all of these cases are well funded (often private equity) firms who prey on the corpses of dying companies, buying up their patent portfolios for the express purpose of filing frivolous (but very expensive to defend) infringement lawsuits.

The current patent law system that allows this to take place is broken, stifles innovation and hurts owners and shareholders of companies that actually make good products.