Talk:VirnetX

No longer a Non-Practicing Entity

They are marketing the new "Gabriel" server — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.120.5 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That unused software seems inline with behavior of other patent trolls in that it essentially derives no significant revenue from this. https://www.patentprogress.org/2016/04/08/virnetx-patent-troll/ 89.255.225.223 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

89.225.225.233, the article you posted was written by a legal blog called patentprogress.org. It is not a neutral source for information and should be taken with a grain of salt. The writer is Matt Levy, gives his subjective opinion that this company is a patent troll. Wikipedia is not a place for subjective opinions, it is an encyclopedia, not a blog. See WP:NPV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_po

Facts are, this company actually produces software called Gabriel Connect for desktop and mobile devices. It is desktop software is available for download via its website and is available for MacOS and Windows platforms. Its mobile software is available for download via the Google Play and Apple Store.

Patent Facts (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on VirnetX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150522201411/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1489.Opinion.9-12-2014.1.PDF to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1489.Opinion.9-12-2014.1.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

Just adding another voice here disputing the neutrality of the article. Nowhere is mentioned that all patents at issue in the on-going VirnetX/Apple trials have been ruled invalid by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an expert-staffed agency, part of the USPTO itself which issues the patents. They have essentially declared they were issued in error due to an interpretation of prior art, although not all appeals have been exhausted.

This agency works in parallel with the Federal Court process which relies on testimony to lay juries. Here is a citation to a more recent Court decision against VirnetX which has occurred since this article was updated in 2014, e.g.

https://www.law360.com/articles/871089/fed-circ-upholds-ptab-nixing-of-claims-in-virnetx-patents

Lastly, the statement "Apple's engineering staff ... knew they were violating ..." is not supported by the Court of Appeals decision cited. Apple's viewpoint is that "VPN on Demand" using a DNS-triggered VPN setup is straightforward from existing practice, via implementation of openly-specified work sponsored by the IETF, and other companies like Cisco. In summary this article is not just biased but is woefully out-of-date. James Alien Woods (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Another voice for the neutrality debate: much of the "NPOV" content appears to be coming from small selection of edits, such as this or these or this deletion or this set; many of which are either deleted accounts or single-purpose ones. There clearly appears to be some astroturfing going on here. ILikeTau (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree, and the overall tone of the article doesn't seem consistent with articles like this one https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/full-scale-of-apples-patent-loss-to-virnetx-is-now-clear-440-million/ "The company, which has 20 full-time and part-time employees and is based in Zephyr Cove, Nevada, makes its revenue from licensing its patents and suing companies it argues infringe those patents." R2 File:Droid small icon.tiff (bleep) 18:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected

I have applied ECP for one week., This is to allow experienced editors attracted from WP:ANI to edit the article, while hopefully preventing further edit warring. Guy (help!) 19:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Several Changes

@GretLomborg: felt that my changes to VirnetX were not due. Gret can you elaborate a bit on why and which sections in particular? Happy to compromise on this. Deltagammaz (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Diff for future reference: [1]

1. You're using inappropriate source, for instance public records and opposing party court filings (which by the way are unreliable since they're biased by design). This is against Wikipedia policy, see WP:BLPPRIMARY.

2. There's no encyclopedic purpose for posting the location of the house of the CEO of this company, and it might be seen as a kind of harassment (especially given the controversial nature of this company).

3. Similarly, there's no encyclopedic purpose for posting a photo of the company's jet, sourced to your own work and the company's 10K filings. It's also WP:OR, which is against policy. Similarly, the name of the image file [2] (which you claim is your own work), seems to indicate a lack of a WP:NPOV, which is also against policy.

You've already been warned about similar issues [3]. I've removed this material again. Please don't re-introduce it. - GretLomborg (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worse than described. These are blatant BLP violations, and subject to sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested edit

NOTE: Suggested text has been deleted due to copyright concerns 2601:602:D080:AB0:7813:E666:FDD5:5BF2 (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Controversy section

@NeutralEd: Your addition of a controversy section, in addition to going against the accurate advice at WP:CSECTION that there should not be a controversy section at all, has some very basic problems at well. It makes original research claims about the company's place in the general discussion, cited to examples rather than sources making claim that that's the company's place in the larger discussion. More than one of the section's sources don't even mentioned the company that's the topic of this article. I have removed that new addition. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that it can be done in a better way, but I think this article should have a section about the company being called a patent troll. Seems like an important topic since it’s mentioned in the lead paragraph. NeutralEd (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a real question of whether it should be mentioned in the lede. There are three sources on that sentence... but the first doesn't use the term "patent troll" and the third is put out by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, hardly a neutral and distant party when it comes to the defense of patents. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, it just seems odd to lead with a pejorative for licensing and defending patents, including the claim that they do not produce products in an article where we cite products they produce, and should we mention that folks have described them as a "patent troll", we should be noting it is a descriptor that they have denied. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

All their "products" are sourced to press releases (VentureBeat included) and should be removed. Quoting from their 10Q: The Company derives revenue from licensing and royalty fees from contracts with customers and Our portfolio of intellectual property is the foundation of our business model.

There are plenty of reliable sources describing them as a patent troll: The Verge, Le Monde, Focus.de, WSJ, The Independent, TechCrunch, ZDNet. DFlhb (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've got things to take care of this morning, so I'm not spending time decoding the foreign language ones there, but I will note that the WSJ piece is an opinion piece, and thus a reliable source that the opinion person said it, but it doesn't count as WSJ's voice but that of venture capitalist Deborah Perry Piscione; despite what the headline says (headlines not being RSes), the Independent article dances close to describing them thusly but never quite does, indicating that others described them as such and that the case might be a specific patent troll situation. And in any case, I think it's a problem if we include the claim that they offer no products when it is quite verifiable that they do. here it is mentioned by a source that, while not great, is at least third party.] -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah; but keep in mind their commercial products predate the bulk of this coverage (all my sources except Le Monde and WSJ, and all three sources we currently cite). As Bloomberg said in 2016, these products are just not the bulk of their revenue (still the case today according to their own statements). I've copyedited to improve it; the sentence was copyvio of The Independent anyway. DFlhb (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but your new description doesn't reflect the sources given for it. The first says they make money suing, not that such is the bulk of their revenue. The Independent source says they make money "through licensing patents and suing anyone that infringes them", and as described, that includes any money they make out of licensing out patents that they control. And the third, as I pointed out before, is put out by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, hardly a neutral and distant party when it comes to the defense of patents. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Better now? AFP (via Capital.fr) is solid and directly supports the new sentence; kept the other cites so the sourcing is well-rounded. DFlhb (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That phrasing is much better. Good job! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)