SueRae. . . They HAD no licensees until they got Microsoft to capitulate in 2011. I repeat. . . Why did SAIC release this "oh so valuable patent," and allow the employees to go, if it was so important as you claim? If it was developed for the US government as you claim, the Government would hold title. That the way Government contracts work. . . and if there is a clause that allowed SAIC to retain ownership, again why assign it elsewhere. . . Especially if it has a potential value in the "billions" of dollars. It simply doesn't make sense. I've slogged through these patents trying to find something unique that justifies this. I can't find it except what I've described. . . which comports with the contemporaneous testimony and facts. These are extremely obvious developments to anyone in the industry. . . and by definition, should not have been patentable. . . Except for their specific approach. Cisco and Apple use a different approach to accomplish a similar thing. No infringement of VirnetX's approach.
I’ll wait for the Fed. Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision rather than iDownload or any Apple site for my information.
Cisco and Apple still use/infringe. the jury got that wrong in the Cisco case...but that’s the chance you take going in front of a jury. I have my own thoughts on that but won’t rehash them here.
I’ll withhold further discussion until the courts decide.