Tyler TX Facebook

Follow Donny on Twitter

Username:
Password:
  Remember Me   Forgot password?  Register
0-9  A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

Find or Refer a Contractor in Tyler

The right to intellectual property and the quagmire of patent trolling in East Texas

March 2nd, 2011

george washington carverThe history of patents in the USA is synominis with names like Thomas Edison, George Washington Carver, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates. Because with each invention and innovation that was thought up of, there was the need for a patent.

Among the many things that factored into becoming the great nation we are is innovation. We have throughout our history found a way to keep speeding ahead with new technology that bettered the lives of Americans and others across the globe.

And in this modern age we continue to look for that “next step” that would continue to elevate us to the next level. Yet, there is one, minor, practice that has both the potential to hinder innovation and leave a scar in our history.

The term, “patent troll” refers to a company that buys and uses patents for the sole purpose of bringing other businesses to court for patent infringement. Besides the unethical method of “business” they are using to gain wealth, is that this type of practice hinders innovation.

The institution of patents and licensing in our nation follows some of our basic principles and beliefs that each man has a right to his property. We can think of patents as the holding of one’s “intellectual” property.

And with a patent an individual has the freedom to pursue their invention with the peace of knowing that it is protected from theft. But, what’s more, is that this encourages the creation of technology. What we find with these patent trolls is an abuse of the system.

As they utilize they protection of held patents to earn royalties and compensation, they sit back with their profit without any purpose or plan to follow through to create or build their invention. That’s right, not only do they not make the patent into a realization, but they punish other businesses that have.

When we observe the things that have come out of the excellence of work of some men in history, it is so sad to see what some individuals are doing to hinder that from going on.

VirnetX of Tyler TX wins $106 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Microsoft

March 17th, 2010
Microsoft Patents

Microsoft

VirnetX has just won a $106 million patent infringement judgement against Microsoft. At issue? Virtual Private Networks.

A jury in the patent holder-friendly district of Tyler, Texas, has found Microsoft Corporation guilty of willful infringement on virtual private network (VPN) patents held by VirnetX, and ordered the company to pay $105.6 million in damages. Because the court found the infringement to be willful, the judge in the case could treble the damage award.

VirnetX brought the suit against Microsoft in 2007, and was originally seeking some $242 million in damages and an injunction against Microsoft’s continued use of the technology. The suit centered around two patents related to virtual private network (VPN) technology, that enables users to set up secure encrypted links between networks that are carried over an unsecure network—like the Internet—and be treated as if they were a member of a local secure-and-trusted network. The patents in question were originally developed by SAIC as part of work the company did for the Central Intelligence Agency; SAIC transferred the patents to VirnetX in 2006 in exchange for a share of royalties VirnetX generated from licensing the technology.

Microsoft is expected to appeal the ruling, and previously said that it believes that its VPN technology was developed independently does not infringe on VirnetX’s patents.

If the penalty holds, it’ll mark the second recent significant infringement loss for Microsoft: last year, jurors awarded some $290 million to i4i for Microsoft Office infringing on patents covering custom XML technology, and Microsoft has been forced to remove the technology from Microsoft Office while appealing the case. (So far, that isn’t going well.)