It is amazing to me that Apple said they can easily work around VHC's patent. This from their expert and speaking for the company. This is NOT a legal issue.
They can ether do this or they have committed a major misrepresentation to the people of Texas and to anyone who would be empaneled to hear the case.
It is a lie or it isn't.
The judge will have to call Apple out on this one and Apple will have no other choice but to either deny a royalty to VHC or Apple must come clean and say there is no workaround.I don't think they will do this and will continue to in their fraudulent allegation.
The judge will deal with this.
JR is gone but his spirit is alive and well in Apple.
There response in the coming weeks should be quite interesting to say the least.
As anticipated, this issue is taking center stage. Apple has just made another filing on this issue, in all probability. Back in July, the Judge told Apple not to claim a workaround is both easy and cheap and then when there's the possibility of an injunction cry that that it will be expensive and difficult and will take much more time than previously stated. (See IV message 36932 ). This is exactly what Apple has done and was told not to do. The filing today is probably to try to explain why at trial a workaround was a few weeks at little expense and in the report to the judge - more than 70 weeks at huge expense.
It seems to me the judge has no choice but to disregard Apple's claims as unreliable/ untrustworthy and to grant the injunction.
If Apple did have a workaround it would be public knowledge at the PTO. All someone would have to do is do a patent search to find it. You don't think McCool Smith who stands to make 8% of billions of dollars have not already checked this?
Apple has disclosed what they consider is their workaround. From what I gather it involves using many servers and in the case of face time having to continually sign in. Its stepping back 10 years even if it could be implemented. The experts say it is not a viable workaround. Remember this case is for prior infringing so even if they tried to use such a dumb workaround it would not affect what they have already stolen. Samsung and Google would love for Apple to try and use servers and archaic technology going forward. Apple is pig headed but not stupid. There is no viable workaround.
O.K. Judge Davis called out Apple on the workaround, as I suspected he would. He wants numbers now. From what I can glean from Jeff/JS's report - he will consider, an soon decide, whether to grant an injunction or impose a royalty. My gut feeling is that it would be easiest and safest for him to grant the injunction because Apple essentially offered perjured testimony in saying a workaround is easy. Logically if a workaround is easy, an injunction isn't going to cause them any harm. Apple has hung themselves.
What is despicable is that the judge knows it's #$%$ but they (Apple) told this nonsense to the good people of Texas. They deserve to hang. Go VHC.
Eric on IV has discussed a Pacer doc. and suggests JD is preparing for a possible injunction. He is but not the way he describes.
Some of you will recall that to obtain an injunction the court must analyze 4 (5) requirements. One of which is to examine which party will suffer more if the injunction is granted or not granted. The judge is asking Apple to show their possible damages and he will use this in his decision to grant/not grant the injunction.
It is therefore most important for Apple to show that they will suffer irreparable damages if an injunction is granted. The problem, and it refers back to the issues made above, is that Apple said that it would be minimumly affected at trial because they have a workaround and that VHC's contribution to Apples products is very small.
I hope that JD will express this in his decision to grant an injunction, highlighting that what they said about injury from any injunction is in direct opposition to what was suggested at trial and proceed to grant the injunction.