Apple told the court that they were able to design around the VirnetX patents. When challenged to show how they would do it their experts produced nothing to defend the claim.
Apple internal memos were produced showing Apple’s inability to design around the patents and have their phones work right. Oops. Discovery is a bitch I guess. Even the hayseed rubes in East Texas could understand that.
Apple is using the VirnetX IP in their iPhones. The VirnetX expert witnesses were able to demonstrate this to the court. Apple is not paying VirnetX for this IP. They are simply stealing it. They were found guilty.
The software in question was developed by SAIC when they were producing communications security for the CIA and other intelligence agencies. VirnetX was spun off in order to market commercial versions. The software was created by SAIC/VirnetX and the IP rights are owned by them.
We see people referring to the defense of IP rights as “patent trolling”. Well if that’s the case let’s see them copy and sell some Apple software since IP apparently can’t be monetized and defended in their little universe. Let’s see how that works. Apple has been stealing. It’s a legal matter. A conscious business policy that too many large corporations have decided to use rather than license the IP that they want to use.
VirnetX can still be denied the right to collect on their own IP through gaming of IPRs at the PTAB. There is a bias against non practicing entities at the CFAC that effectively has been stripping IP developers of their property rights. Fewer people are going to innovate in this sort of environment.
Courts have begun to get wise to the “patent troll” excuse manufactured by the likes of Apple and judges are now addressing this phony construction in their decisions. There will be more of this to come. Property rights of inventors are going to be defended once again after a decade of having these rights trampled upon and their property taken at will. The “patent troll” excuse is nothing other than a demand to steal.
Ok, now you finally admitted the jury is full of idiots, I am a designer / developer and I did enough of that type of software design before 2000 that I do not see how any of the specific features in the patent are useful or nonobvious. A "moving window of valid addresses" is not useful because it was and is impossible to reassign IPV4 addresses at the rate and quantity needed to make the window more than trivial size.
Basically the patents are a hodge podge of incoherent stuff that doesn't add up. Nobody can take it as a design spec and produce anything useful. The main claim, that the scheme prevents eavesdropping is completely bogus. A "seemingly random" scheme won't do that since the algorithm is known. A cryptographically random solution will, but that's not the solution they proposed.