or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's patent suit loss to VirnetX forces VPN behavior changes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's patent suit loss to VirnetX forces VPN behavior changes

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
Following a $368 million judgment against Apple in a patent infringement case, the iPhone maker will make changes to VPN behavior in iOS 6.1.

facetime
Apple's FaceTime, judged to have infringed on VirnetX patents.


Apple announced this week that it would be changing the behavior of VPN ON Demand for iOS devices using iOS 6.1 and later. Those devices with VPN On Demand configured to "Always" will instead behave as if they were configured for "Establish if needed." VPN On Demand connections will only be established if a device cannot resolve the DNS name of a host.

Apple will push out the update that will bring the change later in April.

The change to VPN handling stems from a $368 million judgment against Apple, wherein a federal jury in Texas found that the iPhone maker had violated the patents of VirnetX. VirnetX holds U.S. Patent No. 8,05,181 for a "Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network."

The offending software is Apple's FaceTime, which is featured on millions of iPads, iPhones, and iPods, as well as many recent Mac computers.

Virnet initially filed suit in November of 2011, on the same day that the company was awarded the patent.

Apple had appealed the court's decision, but a U.S. District Court judge in late February upheld the ruling. In deciding, the judge also denied Apple's request for another trial.

On the day that a Texas jury handed down VirnetX's $368 million judgment, the company filed suit against Apple again, adding the iPhone 5, fourth-generation iPad, iPad mini, fifth-generation iPod touch, and "the latest Macintosh computers" to its claim.

[Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the U.S. District Court had barred Apple from appealing the $368 million decision. In fact, the judge in the case turned down Apple's motion for another trial.]
post #2 of 19
Apple should have brought its case against Samsung in Texas.
post #3 of 19
So is Apple really using their method? If so, can someone explain why Apple didn't have the VPN method needed already?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #4 of 19

You'll need to ask Tim Cook about that. It's not like they haven't had many months to prepare an alternative.

post #5 of 19
How can a judge bar you from appealing your case?
post #6 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

You'll need to ask Tim Cook about that. It's not like they haven't had many months to prepare an alternative.

Not sure TC would be the person to grill about this. 1oyvey.gif

post #7 of 19

I am little confused here. Is FaceTime related to the lawsuit? I see it mentioned in the article but no further details were given.

post #8 of 19
"Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network."

Apple's swipe to open was declared invalid in Germany, what's keeping Apple from pushing for the same thing on this "method?" How can a method be patented anyway? The first person to patent a method means nobody else can use the same method without paying for it? We're not talking about a product, we're talking about a sequence of coding. If all Apple has to do is make one little process change, then this patent is worthless and means nothing. I should patent how I walk, forcing everyone else to pay me or walk slightly differently. That's all this patent is.

Apple started suing other companies for little things because they were being sued for little things (like this). This insanity has got to stop. The lawyers and judges would disagree because it's keeping them in business.
post #9 of 19
This just means that Apple will have to invent a new way to do this, and of course, patent it. There's more than one way to make things happen. This ruling simply forces a different approach. Possibly, a better approach.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #10 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So is Apple really using their method? If so, can someone explain why Apple didn't have the VPN method needed already?

 

From what I understand from Apple website about this is that it related to "On Demand" VPN connection. They will remove this feature and instead you will have to turn it on manually in the setting. Apple says they will find another way to do it.

post #11 of 19
They should have have just bought the company through a hostal takeover companies do this all the time and they have more cash than GOD
post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko1357 View Post

They should have have just bought the company through a hostal takeover companies do this all the time and they have more cash than GOD

How would taking over a type of Spanish lodging have helped them?

post #13 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by marko1357 View Post

They should have have just bought the company through a hostal takeover companies do this all the time and they have more cash than GOD

How would taking over a type of Spanish lodging have helped them?


The problem is that God doesn't need the money, and the money doesn't make Apple God. They would do well to remember that.  It seems somewhat incongruous to scream at Samsung for stealing Apples Patents, and to scream at VirnetX and the courts when they find against apple. The size of the award against apple is not too far off what Apple won against Samsung. But I guess that's all fallout from going thermonuclear and using trivial patents to fight competitors in the courts rather than through innovation and slugging it out in the marketplace. What goes around comes around, and its good so.

post #14 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko1357 View Post

They should have have just bought the company through a hostal [sic] takeover companies do this all the time and they have more cash than GOD

VHC Mtk cap 842.68M

 

They have to pay more than a third of the value of the entire company's net worth in the judgement, but they would probably need to pay a 50% premium to acquire the company outright.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #15 of 19

NVMND

post #16 of 19
VirnetX is nothing more than a patent troll. Check out their website at www.VirnetX.com - all their news items are about lawsuits and patent licensing agreements - another company that makes nothing but sucks your blood through a place called East Texas.
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

VirnetX is nothing more than a patent troll. .

 

VirnetX is not what most people would think of as a troll... that is, a company which did not invent the patents it's using.

 

VirnetX was formed by people who originally invented secure communications for the CIA, and they continue to invent.

post #18 of 19
VirtnetX describes themselves as a patent holding company. Is this just another patent troll then?
post #19 of 19
Originally Posted by ajmas View Post
Is this just another patent troll then?

 

Yeah.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's patent suit loss to VirnetX forces VPN behavior changes