Apple Ordered to Pay $368 M in FaceTime Patent Suit Loss
Court loss may lead to more bans for some of its most popular devices.
A U.S. judge has ordered Apple to pay over $368 million to a company related to a FaceTime patent dispute.
Connecticut-based VirnetX said the FaceTime feature found in several Apple devices infringes on patents owned by the company. VirnetX had originally sought for $708 million in damages, but, pending an appeal from Apple, will have to settle for the amount awarded by the judge.
VirnetX operates as an internet security software and technology firm that has been granted patented technology for 4G LTE security. The court case is related to allegations that the FaceTime application violates four VirnetX patents registered between 2002 and 2011.
Although Apple won't be hurt too much with the fine, VirnetX's court case win could back up a claim filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that may potentially lead to a sales ban of Apple's more popular products.
The company said Apple should have paid license fees for its technologies, which consists of a method of creating a secure communication link between different types of system via Tunneled Agile Routing Protocol (TARP).
Speaking after the verdict, VirnetX CEO Kendal Larsen said the firm's win "further establishes the importance of our patent portfolio." A lawyer for the company added that it would file an order seeking to block "further use of its inventions."
VirnetX has also won a similar patent lawsuit against Microsoft, resulting in a payment of $200 million in 2010. It has also taken Cisco, Siemens and other technology firms to court over its patents.

That said, I think this is one of the increasingly rare cases where the system is doing its job correctly. Good for VirnetX, since it seems they were truly victimized by several big boy companies who thought they would get away with it unscathed.
That said, I think this is one of the increasingly rare cases where the system is doing its job correctly. Good for VirnetX, since it seems they were truly victimized by several big boy companies who thought they would get away with it unscathed.
additional details
Imagine this, if you file a patent, you have 1 year to show product (eg a prototype) that implements the patent, then after that, you have 5 years to to produce a final product or at least have a beta unit with plans finalized to bring the product to market.
Those rules can then be retroactively applied to all patents and patents that do not fit in the rules are blacklisted.
This will mostly get rid of patent trolls and also put more on the line for companies that simply want to pstent something that is done now but with a future technology so that the moment someone else makes the actual product, they can sue them.
You know nothing about the specifics of how much of an accomplishment developing the technology in question was. Whether it was a unique approach that the programmers at apple would never have thought of or been able to develop otherwise or just the next logical step in network unification and it never should of been patented in the first place is not clear from the article. Your making assumptions.
Why because they want to get paid for their patented idea? Apple would have sued them if they stole one of their ideas.
Interesting. Did you just make an assumption about my personal knowledge of the various VirnetX litigations - and then berate me for making an assumption? You might want to rethink that.
Helpful tip: Learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
Have a nice day. ^ ^
The issue with this idea is that there are legitimate companies that only do R&D but never produce anything, ARM is a prime example. They do not produce anything and don't even contract their work to other companies, instead they do research and license that work to others. While there is certainly a problem with the current patent system, any alternative plan will be difficult to work out without severely impacting legitimate, non-abusing businesses and individuals.
Exactly +1, people don't understand that there is no simple fix for the patent system. Many seem to think some far sweeping law would solve everything and that is simply not the case.
Seriously though, this could have been avoided if Apple had bought the license from them. Given that Apple doesn't like to pay fair share for other's licenses (see Motorola case), it doesn't surprise me a bit.
That's the sound of the drop in the bucket that will be that check.