Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View jstevenbaker's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • What To Expect From VirnetX's En Banc Appeal [View article]
    Excellent things to consider and well-written, Jeff. I have consistently advised people to forget about this en banc circus. What is done, is done. VHC needs to get back into the district court and value their VPN on Demand technology. Let's move on.
    Dec 11, 2014. 08:31 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX: A CAFC View Through A Clear Lens [View article]
    Perdix, thanks for your reply. I cannot fathom the CAFC using a case under appeal by Apple as a citation in Apple's own Opinion vs Motorola. They had already cited to i4i...they could have stopped there without diluting their Opinion. Citing also VirnetX v Apple following the i4i cite, saying "this court has upheld similar methods" but to Apple's advantage in their case vs Motorola is mind blowing. It would be even more mind blowing if the CAFC used VirnetX v Apple as a citation (upholding VirnetX per the cited section) and then rip apart the damages part of that Federal Supplement.
    Jul 22, 2014. 06:26 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX: A CAFC View Through A Clear Lens [View article]
    Perdix, if I could get your view on 2 items:
    1) what is your opinion on this exchange since FaceTime is not sold separately (see transcript below)?;
    2) why cite the NBS method was upheld in VHC v Apple (that was not a necessary citation) if the CAFC was remanding damages, i.e. requiring a do-over based on taint?

    Judge Chen: "This so‑ called smallest saleable unit."

    Mr. Jakes: "That's right."

    Judge Chen: "The cheapest iPad that I could find..."

    Mr. Jakes: "That's right, without all the memory, without all the features that could be stripped away. I don't think the case law, whether it's Lucent or any of the other cases, say you have to go below that, that you have to somehow come up with a hypothetical smaller unit that has never been sold. In fact, if you look at cases like Laser Dynamics that was the one that had the laptop and the disk drive. That disk drive performed other features beyond what was claimed in the patent. But it was sold separately, so that could be used as a basis for the royalty as opposed to the overall computer.

    I don't think that we've gotten to the point where you have to come up with a hypothetical unit that was never sold."
    Jul 22, 2014. 11:00 AM | 16 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Signs Point To Affirmation Of VirnetX $368M Jury Award Against Apple At CAFC [View article]
    Adam, I just did a very quick review of the last 10 Precedential Opinions posted onto the CAFC's site. Here are the results:

    Affirmed: 8
    Remanded: 2

    Again, that is just the last 10 precedential opinions loaded. Please post the stats you're reviewing.
    Jul 8, 2014. 01:56 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Signs Point To Affirmation Of VirnetX $368M Jury Award Against Apple At CAFC [View article]
    Apple screwed themselves. The Mac was a fractional element of the adjudicated products...very small contribution. Apple never submitted an alternative theory on how to assess damages on the lion share of the products in the lawsuit. Their only claim is the VirnetX expert is doing it wrong.

    With VirnetX offering 3 separate damages theories, which all came to nearly the same damages conclusion, I find it highly unlikely that the CAFC will say the jury instructions were tainted. And THAT is what Apple is clinging onto...they believe if one of VirnetX's damages theories was wrongly introduced, then the whole damages deliberations were poisoned, requiring a new trial.

    Good luck
    Jul 8, 2014. 01:18 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • RPX And IPRs: Let's Play Hide The RPI. [View instapost]
    Good blog, Jeff.
    Apr 10, 2014. 04:41 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX's Response To Apple's Appeal [View instapost]
    Thanks for sharing this, Tom.
    Dec 3, 2013. 05:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Dear Apple Shareholders And Customers: What Apple Should Be Disclosing To You [View article]
    Gilliam, the main take away is Apple is investing millions and millions into an alleged "work-around" for some patent claims that previously delivered Apple customers a better user experience and improved security. Apple are pouring these millions into a temporary Akamai relay server solution.

    Trust me on this, if relay servers were a better approach in delivering service quality and user privacy, they would have switched out before they were proven to infringe on the technology. Besides that, Apple's approach is not sustainable long term because of several of the 4G LTE Advanced security standards map to VirnetX's patent claims.

    The Federal Court will shortly rule on a motion for an ongoing royalty rate. Apple's "work-around" is a short-term gimmick in effort to de-value technology in the Court's eyes. Many believe Apple will quickly return to using VirnetX's technology because it is superior and it is required in meeting some of the 3GPP security specifications in their Release 10 standards.

    So what should Apple disclose to customers? We can start with their misleading Customer Privacy Statement published on their Website. It's the same one Apple used to mislead consumers after the Prism/Snowden news event. Whereas Apple previously fulfilled their privacy statement, they have now made a corporate decision to avoid infringement of another's patents at the risk of the customers' privacy.

    I think customers should know when the operational delivery of a product, e.g. FaceTime and iMessage, have been re-engineered to delivery a worse experience AFTER you have made your purchase of the product. More importantly, if the re-engineering elevates the privacy risk while using the feature, that's a problem and customers should be informed in my opinion.
    Aug 18, 2013. 01:57 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Got VirnetX? A Fruitful Recap Of The Past 2 Weeks [View article]
    Nice re-cap, Tom. Over the past year, you have certainly learned an awful lot about VirnetX, their technology, the USPTO process, and patent litigation matters. Thanks for the read.
    Aug 14, 2013. 09:03 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple: Viability Of Apple Workaround To Avoid A Permanent Injunction [View article]
    Justin, A well thought-out and communicated blog. I look forward to more in the future when you have time. "Observations of the Cisco Trial" comes to mind as a topic of interest.
    Feb 21, 2013. 05:44 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Nice, Dustin. A well-written explanation of VirnetX's USPTO petition and how it may effect Apple's re-exams and the overall litigation.
    Feb 20, 2013. 07:36 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will VirnetX Be Granted An Injunction Against Apple? (Ravicher Report) [View instapost]

    I am hoping you can you clarify a couple of point. First, is it your opinion that VirnetX has motioned for an injunction of the products you listed, e.g. iPhones, iPads, Macs, etc.?

    I attended the post-trial hearing but am blind (as are others) to the actual sealed motions. In the hearing, VirnetX seemed that the injunction request is primarily limited to FaceTime (the app, not the products on which it operates) and the supportive technology used in the non-relay server environment.

    Did you use/reference the transcripts from the Dec 20 hearing in your written report.

    Thanks. I have enjoyed reading your commentary and opinions.
    Jan 22, 2013. 02:41 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX: The Fuse Has Been Lit [View article]
    Yes. It is that difficult to engineer around VirnetX's intellectual property. Why? Because 3GPP's standards-forming body, ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute), has adopted VirnetX's secure protocols for next generation communications.

    You just saw in this case and the Microsoft case that VirnetX's patent claims are solid as a rock. They cover the security standards adopted by 3GPP for 4G LTE Advanced. To put it one way, for companies to comply with the 'standards', they must engineer their product specifications to infringe on VirnetX's IP. Either that or they can say they worked-around, but do not comply with the global standards.

    Good luck.
    Nov 8, 2012. 08:27 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment