backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by dwighty.. on Nov 9 at 5:32 AM


  (Source: The Week)
Appeals are undoubtedly in the works

Apple has been involved in a legal battle with a company called VirnetX over alleged patent infringement involving FaceTime video calling features. VirnetX is the same company that won $200 million in a settlement from Microsoft in 2010.

U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas heard the case. This district court is commonly used for patent infringement suits in the tech world, and in this case, VirnetX alleged that FaceTime was violating four of its patents relating to private networks. The case specifically targeted the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad along with Mac computers.

The patents at the core of the case have to do with the use of a domain-name service to set up virtual private networks allowing website owners to interact with customers securely. VirnetX was seeking $708 million in damages.
 
The company was awarded damages in the amount of $368.2 million.

“For years Apple refused to pay fair value for the VirnetX patents,” Doug Cawley, a lawyer with McKool Smith in Dallas who represents VirnetX, said in closing arguments. “Apple says they don’t infringe. But Apple developers testified that they didn’t pay any attention to anyone’s patents when developing their system.”

“Apple does not owe money to VirnetX,” Danny Williams, a lawyer with Williams, Morgan & Amerson in Houston who represents Apple, told the jury. “VirnetX 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.”

VirnetX and Apple have another case pending before the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington. VirnetX also has claims pending against Cisco Systems, Avaya Inc. and Siemens Enterprise Communications that will begin in March.

Source: Bloomberg



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: No suprise
By Manch on 11/7/2012 3:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not the design which makes software unique, it's the underlying code and implementation.


huh?


RE: No suprise
By RufusM on 11/7/2012 5:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
My point is that two software applications performing the same function could look the same, but the code underneath can be completely different. It's code that makes the implementation of a given design unique when it comes to software. Code is written in a language so it should fall under copyright law, not patent law.

For example, if I wrote application scrolling software from scratch that performs a bounce back animation when it reaches the end of the scroll section, my code would be be very different from, say, Apple's code. The effect would be the same but my implementation would be completely different from theirs.


RE: No suprise
By Manch on 11/8/2012 4:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh OK, That makes more sense.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki