
Judge wipes out patent troll’s $625M verdict against Apple - nkurz
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/judge-wipes-out-patent-trolls-625m-verdict-against-apple/
======
praseodym
Back in 2013, Apple had to redesign FaceTime to use server relayed connections
instead of peer-to-peer to circumvent VirnetX's patent(s) [1]. I wonder if,
after this verdict, they will (and are allowed to) undo this change and start
doing peer-to-peer again; Apple will probably have invested quite a lot in
their (cloud) infrastructure to support these server relayed connections.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-
pate...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-patent-loss-
apple-tweaks-facetime-and-logs-500000-complaints/)

~~~
tehwebguy
Wow, I never bothered to look up why FaceTime worked so well for me at the
beginning and suddenly became completely unusable for me later on.

~~~
jrcii
It would be nice if they just used SIP in the first place so that other
systems could interoperate with FaceTime. Typical Apple.

~~~
givinguflac
While you're irrationally hating, you should know FaceTime was originally
planned to be cross platform. The need to completely change how it worked
obviously stopped that from happening.

~~~
braderhart
What proof?

~~~
Navarr
Apple did initially claim Facetime would be an open standard.

> Upon the launch of the iPhone 4, Jobs stated that Apple would immediately
> start working with standards bodies to make the FaceTime protocol an "open
> industry standard".

claims Wikipedia. Other websites also highlight the "open standard" it was
supposed to become:

[1]: [http://www.fiercedeveloper.com/story/facetime-open-
standard-...](http://www.fiercedeveloper.com/story/facetime-open-standard-
never-happened/2012-12-06) [2]:
[https://redd.it/1xuzif](https://redd.it/1xuzif) [3]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2605498](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2605498)
[4]:
[https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4547345?start=0&tstart=...](https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4547345?start=0&tstart=0)
[5]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime)

~~~
erlehmann_
Whenever someone mentions FaceTime, I immediately think of this blog post
“Steve Jobs sometimes lies to you”: [https://zachholman.com/posts/steve-jobs-
sometimes-lies/](https://zachholman.com/posts/steve-jobs-sometimes-lies/)

------
erdevs
This is good news in that I generally feel any setback for an apparent patent
troll is a good thing.

But this isn't too broad. Looks like a _very_ specific issue to this
_trial_... not even this patent claim or case, let alone a broader implication
for patent claims in general.

It sounds like VirnetX's lawyers simply referenced a previous case too often
in the judge's estimation, and so he's throwing the verdict out, meaning a
retrial would be necessary. Case doesn't seem to set any precedent (or, what
precedent it does set on referencing previous trials might cut both ways for
patent plaintiffs and defendants). Noting regarding merits of claims or
anything as far as I can tell from the reporting.

If anyone more expert can weigh in or correct, that'd be appreciated too!

~~~
Retric
It increases their costs and thus risks. Remember if their costs get to high
they can't afford to buy new patents and there is a ticking clock before their
current portfolio is worthless.

~~~
erdevs
Yes. :-) Not sure if you meant to reply to me or another commenter.

~~~
Retric
My fault for not being clear. I was responding to "But this isn't too broad."
I agree this case is not directly important, but it will have a fair amount of
indirect impact based on the award size if nothing else.

------
StanislavPetrov
Patent trolls are a symptom of the disease that is our horribly broken patent
system, which also serves to stifle innovation and protect the interests of
large, entrenched businesses at the expense of everyone else. Unfortunately,
instead of working to fix our broken patent system, we are doubling down and
trying to impose it on a global basis via the TPP (often categorized as a
"free trade" deal when it is in fact quite the opposite) and other misbegotten
treaties.

~~~
MicroBerto
There is one US candidate who is against TPP, but unfortunately, I highly
doubt anyone nearby understands the devastation that software patent trolls
cause on the tech industry.

~~~
seizethecheese
Actually, they're all against TPP except for Gary Johnson.

~~~
MicroBerto
Clinton is most certainly _not_ against TPP.

~~~
seizethecheese
She's been ostensibly against the TPP for almost a year. Do your research.

[https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_...](https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-
Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal#tab=Democratic_candidate)

(Edit: better link)

------
Chaxxxi
Forgive the noob comment, but how does the patent troll know that it can sue
Apple? How do they know what infrastructure Apple is using? Do they just sue
indiscriminately and find winner cases through discovery?

------
exo762
Every time I see a Patent Troll vs Big Tech Corp case, I root for Patent
Troll.

Don't get me wrong, patent trolls are menace of tech world deserving to be
tarred and feathered. But truth is, PTs are not main beneficiaries of broken
system. Main beneficiaries are Big Tech Corps (APLN, MSFT, GOOG, ETC).
Coincidentally, those companies have enough leverage to fix this system if
they wanted to. Problem is - they don't.

That's why I root for Patent Troll every time.

~~~
jshevek
I can see a line of reasoning that suggests that if abusive patent trolls had
enough success against the giant tech companies, that the tech companies might
consequently lobby for patent reform (for the purpose of protecting themselves
from trolls), with the additional consequence that the reform would also limit
their own ability to abuse patents.

Sadly, that is not likely to happen.

IIRC, Apple lobbied for patent 'reform' that targeted NPEs, while leaving
producers completely off the hook for patent abuse.

------
imaginenore
Patent troll or not, I find it's pretty crazy that a single judge can throw
out the jury verdict simply because he didn't like the arguments of one side.

~~~
ohitsdom
Yeah, that seemed crazy to me too. It'd be extremely disheartening to spend a
fortune on legal bills, finally win the case, then have it thrown out months
later by a judge on a whim.

~~~
pjc50
Not a _whim_ , failure of the original court to follow procedure on admissible
argument.

------
dagaci
Patents are very much open to abuse. Giant tech could seriously lobby for a
change... but for Apple and other giant tech-corporations there's a quandary:
they can use patents to protect themselves, but at the same time those same
patent methods can be used against them

------
Aelinsaar
That has to be quite the moment, when you realize that the more than half
billion you were about to see a piece of evaporates.

~~~
callalex
I have little sympathy for someone who makes their money by leeching off of
others instead of providing real value to society.

~~~
Aelinsaar
Why do you think that I was expressing sympathy?

------
api
This is extremely good news for anyone doing... well... pretty much anything
interesting with network protocols. This troll covers among other things:
anything P2P, SIP, DNSSec, VoIP that does not flow through a central server,
certain types of VPNs, certain types of SDN, ... it's crazy.

~~~
pjc50
So what _does_ it cover, in a user-friendly summary?

------
ww520
The lawyers all cheer! It will be a retrial.

------
nitin_flanker
Similar is going to be the story of Mr. Chan's patent which is also known as
the first patent of Hoverboards. Mr. Chan has sued more than 30 companies for
infringing his patent. But an analysis [1] says that his patent holds no water
and is not novel. The day his patent will get challenged in a court and get
invalidated, a similar article with a different headline will appear on
Arstechnica.

[1][http://www.greyb.com/first-patent-on-hoverboard-can-get-
inva...](http://www.greyb.com/first-patent-on-hoverboard-can-get-invalidated/)

~~~
tjl
At least in that case there's a physical product. I don't mind patents, but I
prefer the original version where you needed a physical implementation.

I don't know about his design in particular, but I have the mechanical and
electronic skills to design something that would likely infringe on his patent
and I haven't read the patent or even looked at a breakdown of a hoverboard.
The patent probably doesn't meet the novelty requirements.

------
mathattack
Although Apple is probably ok without the money, I cheer every time I see
someone win in one of the trolling cases. It takes big companies to fight this
- ones with deep enough pockets and long enough time horizons to realize that
feeding the trolls enables them to grow.

When I read that these are jury trials, it seems to me that East Texas must
have an army of people who now know quite a bit about patent law having sat
through so many of these cases. Strange specialization.

------
ommunist
As Stallman pointed years ago, software patents are evil. And I agree with him
on that point 100%. EU software patenting is less evil, but still is.

------
hackaflocka
How much do judges charge for this sort of thing? Anybody know?

~~~
exo762
That's very mean spirited of you.

Judges are a vital part of three branches of government. Their power relies on
respect, not guns or ability to write laws. The reason for contempt of court
laws, whole circus with black robes, "your honor" is to create appearance of
"wow, those people are important". Because they REALLY are a very important
part of good governance. They just don't have muscle to prove it to you. And
you don't really want them to have to rely on muscle of executive branch.
Because in case of you vs executive, judges need to be impartial, independent,
having their own weight in society.

Unless you know something we don't, you should not imply that this judge is
corrupt.

