Apple gets judge to hit ctrl-alt-delete on $625m FaceTime patent troll

A US District Court judge has thrown out an earlier $625m verdict against Apple in a long-running patent trial over FaceTime – and ordered a new trial. Judge Robert Schroeder of the Eastern Texas US District Court issued an order [PDF] granting Apple's motion for a retrial on the grounds that the jury was not properly …

[Steve Davies 3]

Act 2

Please take your seats now.

This is actually surprising given the location of the case namely, East Texas, home to the patent troll industry.

[redpawn]

Play on

This is mu$ic to the lawyers.

[Dadmin]

Key combo correction

It would be Command-Q, in normal cases, and for patent trolls it would be Option-Command-Escape to forcibly halt the case.

[Youngone]

Nonsense

"the Court's paramount obligation – to ensure that both sides receive a fair and impartial trial – " has nothing to do with it.

The Court's only obligation is to keep the money flowing. They've proved this again and again.

[Oengus]

Re: Nonsense

The Court's only obligation is to keep the money flowing to the lawyers. They've proved this again and again.

FTFY

[gobaskof]

Patent reform

Now please

[Zap]

Theft and Infringement

Apple was founded on theft and Infringement with it's original GUI being stolen from Xerox Parc.

Over the years we have seen time and time again Lawsuit after Lawsuit, we could save a lot of time and lawyer fees by just assuming they are guilty.

What we really need is a percentage of future products awared as well as the penalty so that if they run out of money. It should certainly be cumulative and once you have 3 Infringements against you the CEO should be considered NOT a fit a proper person to hold a directorship of any company,

They were found guilty of theft and Infringement but because they have smart lawyers they can ask for a retrial, I hope the new Judges award DOUBLE the current fine or even 5x the penalty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Theft and Infringement

"Apple was founded on theft and Infringement with it's original GUI being stolen from Xerox Parc."

Just because you like to remember it this way, doesn't necessarily make it true. I was around IT and the time and remember it differently. A good link which goes to the people who were there at the time including the Xerox PARC people is here - Offering $1M dollars in stock (when that was real money) doesn't sound like theft to me.

[Sebby]

Re: Theft and Infringement

Bollocks! This company VirnetX, and its patents, are without merit. Details here.

So unless you think companies should be awarded patents for doing nothing at all very special, Apple most definitely should win. And yes Apple are bullies too; that makes no difference. Virnetx are trolls, plain and simple.

[heyjimmy]

Re: Theft and Infringement

Not this old chestnut again, surely?

It was licenced for stock options as detailed below and in may other places:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto

[Alan Brown]

Re: Theft and Infringement

"Apple was founded on theft and Infringement with it's original GUI being stolen from Xerox Parc."

And trolling, suing (unsucessfully) to try and prevent Windows being sold, based on "Look and Feel" - http://lowendmac.com/2006/the-apple-vs-microsoft-gui-lawsuit/

GEM was also wiped off PCs about the same time by Apple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager

[azaks]

dont know or care...

...whether apple ripped off FaceTime (wouldn't be surprised either way). But I have 2 peevs.

1) the entire US "justice" system that exists only to make lawyers rich, and provide a "get rich quick scheme" encouraging people to sue each other for any infringement - real or imagined.

2) that low-life companies are allowed to buy patents for things they had no involvement in, for the sole purpose of abusing the above.

I'm off to my corner now for a little cry...

[A K Stiles]

Re: dont know or care...

It would be good if there was some sort of 'implementation' requirement where the current owners of a patent have to demonstrate the mechanism of the patent working (and not just identical to, or even just, a thing they bought from the previous patent owner(s) ) before they are allowed to sue for the infringement.