You DO have a problem with reading comprehension. That 2012 case does not vindicate Apple. That piece of paper and the $368 million judgement were vacated. None of us commenting on this case have ever tried to claim such a thing. You are making that claim up out of whole cloth to denigrate all the people who disagree with you. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!
What vindicates Apple is the US Patent Office INVALIDATING the patents while Apple was still appealing the decision; the invalidity said patents is one of the strongest arguments that Apple made during that trial, claiming that the patent claims were so broad they should never have been granted in the first place, which is exactly what the USPTO found when they invalidated all four of them as well as finding they were obvious developments to any one familiar with the art. All four of the patents in suit even state in their background statements that:
"A tremendous variety of methods have been proposed and implemented to provide security and anonymity for communications over the Internet. The variety stems, in part, from the different needs of different Internet users."
They all go on to state that the current inventions describes another approach. Apple stated in the suit they were using and continue to use one of the other, but similar, approaches that does not infringe the in suit patents. There are literally hundreds of already patented systems.
Each of these patents ALSO state:
"GOVERNMENT CONTRACT RIGHTSThis invention was made with Government support under Contract No. 360000-1999-000000-QC-000-000 awarded by the Central Intelligence Agency. The Government has certain rights in the invention."
Any such development made under contract to the Federal government if it has any value becomes the property of the Federal government. How VirnetX can claim ownership of the rights to this technology is very questionable.
How much of this "infringement" payment from Apple does the CIA get? Who formed the two companies involved? Are the dummy companies for the NSA and CIA? Some have brought these questions up because of the strange connections and questionable transactions and huge contracts the original company had with both the CIA and NSA.
The Cuozzo and Stryker decisions pending before SCOTUS should settle this soon.
Right now two different standards are being applied to patents. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in the PTAB and Ordinary Claim Construction in the courts. An administrative agency, the PTAB, is claiming the power to overrule Article 3 decisions. So there’s conflicting standards and a power grab by an executive agency going on.
SCOTUS will assert its authority to retain jurisdiction over patent cases because it is in the Constitution. Congress, by statute, cannot alter or diminish the constitutional authority of the courts by turning that power over to an administrative agency, the PTAB. The PTAB is what Apple has been relying on.