If I understand your post, I think you are attempting to show me how it's more practical for the offending company to just keep infringing. If that's correct, I find your post does not do that at all. From what I gathered, Apple is still in violation and has not had anything reversed by the Biden admin. I certainly see how disconcerting and frustrating the system is for the patent owner but Apple did indeed agree to stop selling the watches very soon and no doubt they are still liable for infringing if the pateng owner just hangs in there and keeps the pressure on and eventually, Apple will have to pay.
In the case of vplm, it's a whole different story in my opinion, as I don't think their patents are any good (which for the umpteenth time, has nothing to do with patent validity, which ppl just don't seem to be able to understand).
Additionally, and this is key.....the sheer amount of liability real offenders/infringers have, and in all the various ways I've described in other posts, makes it TOTALLY IMPRACTICAL for the company and it's shareholders, to keep on infringing. Again, a close read of your article, does NOT show any get out of jail free cards for apple. Only delays that hope to win for the infringer, but again, Apple has to stop selling the watch and is still liable for infringement.
Ironically, I just happened to have received a couple of these watches in the mail yest. Not an apple watch but a Chinese knockoff I guess, that works for apple or android via an app. Not only does pulse oximeter and heartrate but does blood pressure as well and a million other functions as well like phonecalls, texts, weather, walking, etc, etc. While ppl pay unreal prices for real apple watches and or android versions, I won't tell you how much I paid for my watches as you wouldn't believe me...
Bottom line....as I've been saying for years, and your article doesn't even begin to debunk, IF vplm's patents were ALL they are cracked up to be, which in turn, would give them that unfathomable humongous value, then it would make zero sense for any company to not buy, license or settle. Too much at stake for them not to. It's THAT simple! Your article does more to support that than it does to give reasons to keep infringing.
All my commentary is to be considered as my personal opinions, to which I am entitled. And there is no proof of said opinions unless I offer it in the comments.
