Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Maybe OT but I found this blog post by VirnetX while reading further into this issue:

https://www.virnetx.com/patent-trolls-ask-jason-bourne/




VirnetX's version of 'imessage' was released May 2015.

Apple's imessage was released October 2011.

Yet they're suing because Apple infringed on their vague communication encryption patents from the early 2000s.

There should be massive fines for patent trolls to deter this kind of behavior. Patenting abstract ideas with no viable product should not be allowed.


Haven't you heard? Abstract ideas aren't patentable--the Supreme Court cleared everything up in the Alice decision!

/sarcasm


Thank you for the sarcasm tag! I honestly use that on the internet lately because 63% of everything is sarcasm and then it's just a whole ridiculous mess of misunderstanding.


Honestly I do not think it is the problem with a patent holder, but rather USPTO for giving patents to whatever. Maybe the problem is (or was) that staff were not knowledgeable about the subject enough. What are you saying sounds much like "People majoring in nose picking at college of Eastern Nowhere should not be allowed to run for President", or "people who won the lottery with random numbers should not be allowed to claim full reward".

Patents are much like little pieces of law. And we can either believe in law in its entirety or ignore it whatsoever. I choose the former. If someone uses and abuses exceptions and loopholes in the law, the problem is with the law, not person using that to their advantage.


> There should be massive fines for patent trolls to deter this kind of behavior. Patenting abstract ideas with no viable product should not be allowed.

Then start with fining large corporations who each hold numerous patents that do not ship a corresponding "viable product" for.


Love that the founder believes that because technologists founded the company and a movie character used something similar, they are not a troll.

They list some companies that have licensed their software, but did they actually license software or just settle the IP claim?

>>> VirnetX has been saying for years that it has plans to market various products, but for the time being, its income comes from licensing patents. It has about a dozen employees and leases a small office in Zephyr Cove, Nevada for roughly $5,000 a month, according to a recent yearly financial statement. >>>

Finally, is _anyone_ using the suite they released in 2015? Also funny: their website forum is filled with employee-generated Q&A back in May 2015.


Their product white paper has some stuff that's a bit odd. http://www.gabrielsecure.com/white-paper/

(It at least avoids "military grade encryption!")


"All you have to do is look in the app store on your iPhone and you’ll find the Gabriel Collaboration Suite, a set of integrated applications that enable secure messaging, secure voice and video calling, secure mail and secure encrypted file sharing with any other device. We created and sell these products."

Sure I trust secure comms to a company with CIA involvement. I bet, those apps are closed source...


Interesting...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: