I wholeheartedly agree. Apple IS a patent troll themselves. I’ve been following a company that has patents on secure end to end encrypted communications. They won a 368 million dollar verdict against Apple on 11/6/2012. apple has used every trick in the book to fight it. They (and other big silicon valley types) helped craft the final version of the AIA. Among the provisions, they created new ways to fight ‘so-called patent trolls.’ (See IPR and PTAB). 0bama couldn’t spell patent troll without them but it became his meme du jour. They are deep into his pocket. Those new processes allow a loser in a patent suit to fire multiple shots on goal against smaller companies and their inventors by re-litigating the same patents and trying to get them declared invalid. all post jury verdict. it costs big to play this game...and the deep pocketed Apple has no qualms about doing so. Currently, the Federal Appeals court is considering an appeal from Apple against this small company to have the jury verdict overturned. We should have an answer in a few weeks. There’s a good site: ipwatchdog, that I read. I’m no lawyer, especially a patent attorney..but the new AIA (America Invents Act)and the further tweaks they are trying to add to it are making it much more difficult to protect small inventors and their intellectual property.
SueRae, you've read some things and swallowed them. . . But look behind the curtain at the facts. . .
VirnetX—the company you are referring to—is what is known as a non-practicing entity. They did not invent the technology to which you are referring. An NPE buys a portfolio of fringe patents or even just one patent—these fringe patents are patents that are NOT being licensed for any use and can be purchased for low prices—not with the intent to use the patent to make something, but to sue with it. They find an obscure claim in their newly acquired patent that is similar to something a producer IS already making, doing, and/or producing, something that can be stretched into being construed as infringing and then sue the company who is actually doing the useful work, regardless if their "patented invention" is apropos to what they are making, doing, or producing. That IS a patent Troll. That is what your VirnetX is. I've read their patents. . . pretty heavy and boring reading.
If you’re not familiar with the name VirnetX, you should be. The Internet security software and technology company (also known as a patent troll) has filed a patent infringement suit against every major tech company in the business, including Apple.source
Why has this tiny, unknown company suddenly started suing everyone in sight, which YOU think is just the evil Apple? Because, they acquired a laughable set of patents that establish a virtual private network, assign domain names, securing virtual private networks, and establishing a secure VPN using an encrypted key. There are literally hundreds of methods of doing these things. . . but claims in these patents with antecedents back to 1998 lead to the claim they invented VPN. . . not just their approach. Did the people granted these patents perhaps really come up with the idea of the Virtual Private Network and assigning Domain names? Hell no! VPN obviously predates 1998 as does assigning domain names, but it's in their claims. . . so everyone involved is attempting to invalidate the idiotic patents under obviousness, prior art, and other issues. That is what you are defending.
The fact that NO ONE WAS LICENSING these patents means they were most likely worthless. No one was licensing the VirnetX VPN and DNS methods. That's why the NPE can acquire them so cheaply. No one wanted them. An NPE buys a fringe patent gambling they'll be able to find something in the claims they can use to convert it into a pile of windfall licensing money by demanding licensing from a company such as Microsoft, HP, or Apple for a happenstance claim violation. . . not because they are truly infringing the patent itself. Claims are written extremely broadly by patent attorneys to include everything imaginable AND unimaginable.
In the case you are claiming Apple is so heinously guilty about and is so evilly appealing. . . Apple demonstrated IN COURT they legally licensed the virtual connectivity technology Apple used from Cisco built into hardware ROM ICs. If so, and Cisco was licensed for the patents Cisco used, then Apple was covered under the doctrine of patent exhaustion and Apple need not be directly licensed. Cisco testified that it IS licensed for everything in their ICs and the testimony showed it was NOT VirnetX tech. In fact, the Cisco licensed tech was in NO WAY similar to VirnetX's software patents. You can't infringe something that is not there, SueRae. Yet the jury ignored the evidence and found for VirnetX in what had to have been a very expensive sympathy vote. But then this was the East Texas Plaintiff Friendly "Rocket Docket" Federal Court famous for such skewed patent awards. I guess their hearts bleed for the "poor little inventor, too." Too bad they're nowhere to be found in this little juror amorality tale.
In 2013, when VirnetX sued Cisco on the same patents, VirnetX LOST! Cisco used the same testimony and evidence that Apple had used. . . and proved they did not use the VirnetX patents, in fact using totally different approaches to accomplish a similar result. However, the jury did not, unfortunately, invalidate the VirnetX patents. Since Apple licenses the Cisco ICs for that purpose, it is impossible for Apple to have infringed VirnetX patents, as found by the first jury using to the same evidence, which the second jury found not to be infringing EVEN WITH THE PRECEDENCE of the Apple verdict! THAT is why Apple is appealing. There are two contrary judgments. So here we have the totally absurd case where the customer Apple, has been found to be infringing a patent on a product found to be not infringed by the seller, Cisco, in the same court . . . on the same product, for the same patents, with the same testimony, and evidence. Is it any wonder this is being appealed???
And THAT—because of this case and others—is why Congress, not Obama, are considering changing the rules regarding the ability of NPEs to sue. Congress is considering that patents must be exercised, licensed by and/or used by their owner/holder before infringement suits can be brought.
You said you weren't a lawyer. May I suggest you dig deeper into facts before you label Apple a patent Troll. Apple uses the patents they develop, own, or assert. . . or intends to one day. They do not meet the definition of a troll. These people you think you are protecting are NOT the inventors. Far from it. . .