Apple fined $368 million after losing FaceTime patent lawsuit | Hacker News Reader

Apple fined $368 million after losing FaceTime patent lawsuit

ibtimes.co.uk

29 pointsSuraj-Sun24 comments

Apple will probably get little press for this, but it was just as unfair to them as the Samsung lawsuit was unfair to Samsung. Software patents (and ultra-cooperative courts) are a problem no matter which angle you look at it. It is not Apple, nor Samsung, nor VirnetX (wow that name sucks)—but the system which allows them to take advantage of patents that needs to be fixed.

If Apple takes some expensive licks in this system it is less likely that they will advocate to keep it. I'm all for entities that use software patents as a sword to be hit hard financially as often as possible.

Apple lawyer Danny Williams told the jury that the iPhone maker does not owe money to VirnetX, adding that the company is "not entitled to money for things they did not invent. The VirnetX technology, if used, is a small part of very large, complex products."

That's the line I like the best. Considering the kind of crazy lawsuits going on between Apple, Samsung et al, I wonder if this can be used by lawyers of defending parties in their next patent lawsuit! :)

What makes me curious is whether this lawsuit has anything to do with Apple never actually submitting FaceTime to the standard bodies.

I was beginning to think that I had completely hallucinated Steve Jobs telling the world that FaceTime was going to be an open standard.

I read somewhere that the FaceTime developers learned that fact from Steve's keynote as well.

Yes, that happened, at least according to one dude: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/05/11/facetime-standar...

How much time do developers spend looking at patents? If I want to build something, I will figure out how it should go together and make it. Does a patent still apply if a developer can prove they discovered how to do it separate from the person who originally patented it?

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that it depends if the patent in question covers the idea/concept, or an implementation of that idea... with the usual caveat of different countries/different rules.

(In theory) patents can only cover an implementation; you cannot get a patent on an idea or concept. In practice ...

The general recommendation for developers is to not look at patents ever. Infringing a patent you know about is more expensive than getting blind sided.

Yes, the patent still applies.

As John Carmac (Doom/Quake engine writer) said:

The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

Horrifying doesn't mean it's not true.

But on what basis can a developer be accused of knowing something if he chooses to deliberately deny knowing it? Or, put it another way, is there a reliable method for a developer to prove that he knew nothing about the patent in question? Because, if there is such a method, I don't understand why not to look at patents. Also, if there is no such a method, then again - I can be accused of anything, so why not to go look at it anyway?

The idea of patenting paths of reasoning is such a nonsense.

If you are willing to lie under oath for unlawful personal gain, then the laws will guide your actions in a different manner.

This is not exactly what I'm trying to understand. Is the oath enough (when we're talking about $368 million)? Will there be no investigation of what I said under oath anyway? What do you mean by 'am I willing to lie under oath'? If I'm infringing, but there is no certain (more or less) way of proving I knew about the damn patents, I am willing to lie. I am going to lie, and I'm not announcing it to the court, of course.

The whole concept of oath seems to be very weak.

Generally speaking, developers do not spend any time looking at patents. Patents still apply even if you discover the idea independently; however, if you are found to have infringed on a patent, and you are found to have done so knowingly, then it becomes "willful infringement" and the damages may be higher as a result.

This sets up a perverse system in which patents are intended to provide limited protection in exchange for publishing your inventions to help spread knowledge, but those who would benefit most from that knowledge are strongly incentivized against looking at any patents, out of fear of the possibility of willful infringement.

A couple replies have mentioned willful infringement, but I don't think they quite got it right. It's true that if you are found to be a willful infringer, damages can be increased.

However, willfulness requires more than merely knowing about the patent and its claims. It requires reckless disregard for the patent. If you read a patent, and honestly decide that the claims don't cover what you are doing, then if you end up infringing it likely will not be willful.

Right; it's not that knowing about the patent makes the infringement willful. It's that (as I understand it) a good defense against willful infringement is being able to say "I have never seen that patent".

Your "...and honestly decide..." line assumes that courts get it right.

Looking at the outcome of recent cases, this does not seem like a good assumption to make.

Does a patent still apply if a developer can prove they discovered how to do it separate from the person who originally patented it?

Yes. Patents grant ownership of ideas, not implementations.

How soon until we hit the patent abuse endgame, where all technology companies lay off everybody but the lawyers and just sue each other into oblivion?

Maybe Apple and other corps. should offer subsidized housing in this part of Texas, to outsiders, with the criteria being that you must be against patent trolling.

Flagged. Patent awards are equitable compensation. A fine is a punitive measure.

Most patent awards include a punitive component, so fine is not a completely inaccurate term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com