Which is great news for lawyers charging by the hour.
Isn't this the way it works? File lawsuit. Win or lose, the lawyers get paid*,
*Except for the ambulance chasers and their "you don't pay if we don't win" adverts.
An American patent-holding biz says it will bag a $440m windfall from Apple in a long-running infringement case that seems unlikely to end any time soon. VirnetX said Monday it had wrapped up the appeals process in an eastern Texas district court, and it now stands to collect $439.7m in total damages from the Cupertino idiot- …
"Poor journalism supported by bad editorship. Brings El Reg down to the level of The Sun, The Star, or The Daily Mail."
I think that you will find that the Sun, Star and Mail would never mock Apple for fear of being blacklisted by Cupertino.
The Guardian have been blacklisted ever since they gave the ipad mini 3 out of 5 stars.
Computer Bild since they showed how easy it was to fold the bendy iPhone in half.
The Reg? It was suggested that their crime was taking the piss out of Jobs' receding hairline.
Perhaps some of the memes are tired but at least this organ is consistent in their refusal to treat any tech firm as a cult.
"Apple slapped hard with $440m patent bill in VirnetX FaceTime spat"
I'm 100% with Apple on this one. Despite some online whitewashing, you find that if you look deeper then you see that the opponent in this case is none other than a patent troll entity.
I hope that Apple appeals and goes on to win any appeal because I regard any patent troll operation as a corporate parasite that needs crushing and defeat.
In due course, I'd like to see some Supreme Court landmark judgement which makes it very difficult for these patent troll parasites to operate and survive.
Oh, so "patent trolls" are bad, firms with very deep pockets that patent the obvious are good?
Patents have a value, why shouldn't they be sold by the holder to third parties, regardless of whether those third parties are trolls or not? In the case of patent trolls, they are simply trying to grab a slice of someone else's profit. Isn't that preferable to firms that try to use patents as an excuse to prevent other firms from actually selling products.
Surely the crux of the problem is the ease with which firms can gain patents when they are obvious or where the applicant decides to ignore prior art?
An example that springs to mind is "slide to unlock". Apple persisted to use it as a stick to beat competitors with even though they would have been aware that the Neonode NM1 had it years before.
It is difficult to sympathise with apple given their frequent and repeated abuses of the patent system. Lets not forget that they are currently using Qualcomm's IP and refusing to pay a single bean even though they had previously agreed the terms.
"A lesser of evils is still evil"
In this particular instance, I'd definitely say that Apple is the lesser of the two evils because the very last thing I would want to ever see is a court give a green light to an overt patent troll operation which ultimately benefits nobody else.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019