Comment by erdevs | Hacker News Reader

Comment by erdevs | Hacker News Reader

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!

This is essentially exactly what happened. I work in this field. Because of the complexities of the trial and the overlap in subject matter/patents, the judge felt that the jurors could have been confused and vacated the verdict. It doesn't really have many applications for this area of law outside of this case.

Just to clarify "referenced a previous case," what VirnetX did was say, "Apple said the same things in a previous case where we prevailed," to the effect of "they used the same rationale when they lost before, so they should lose here, too." Which is just bad logic.

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.

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

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.

Not sure what you mean. This verdict implies a net zero loss to patent trolls.

What? Sure, there is no direct loss here. But it is a setback. Also, they (at least temporarily) lose the previously established verdict award ($625M, apparently) and also now have to decide whether to re-try (with the associated costs).

I agree that one side had a setback. But the net effect on patent trolls is still zero :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com