It looks like these guys are just trying to publicize this.
It will get them nowhere.
Wait, what? "At least a few hrs everyday?" WTF? I'm morbidly curious how and why you would have the need or time to video call for several hours every single day. Again, why??
I suggest you look up the employee roster of VirnetX and the list of named inventor's on the patent and then report how many of the named inventors work for VirnetX. It probably wouldn't hurt if you took a look at the SAIC to VirnetX connection. The notion that an inventor who defends their own patent is a troll is absurd. If you are willing to bridge the gap from inventor to investor in defining a troll, wouldn't it be smaller leap to label Apple a troll as they have purchased patents from third parties and are just sitting on thousands of them? Which sounds closer to the actual definition of a patent troll.
I use FaceTime at least a few hours everyday and I never had one problem for more than a year. It's weird that people complained about this free service. One thing I learn, FaceTime kills long distant phone business. I used to call my family idevices across the pacific and costed me a lot on phone cards every month. It's free now with FaceTime. Next, FaceTime Audio will kill a lot of provider calling plans because you can FT using 3G/4G. No more running out minutes every month.
Who says they complained, though? VirnetX? What's that worth?
What is the difference between a set of algorithms to handle an encoded connection (VPN) versus a set of algorithms to convert your text to pig latin? One is patentable while the other is not, or are they both patentable? I don't understand how a company can patent a set of software routines. Logic is not something that was invented, it is something that has existed for all of time.
Speaking from experience, I find it very difficult IP developed for the CIA at SAIC becomes their property, irregardless that they are included in the Patent filings as inventors.
Looks like some of the major stake holders are NSA, IBM, GE Capital.
Interesting read with lots of related links.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
I assume you are referring to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) with that statement. If so, then you are incorrect about this particular patent. If a company doesn't offer a patent that is then included as part of an industry standard then it's not a SEP and the company is under no obligation to license the patent. If it does choose to license the patent, it can do so at any price it deems appropriate (and which is agreed by the licensee).
since when stuff developped on a government contract of some sort doesn't have the patent belong to the government that paid for it, with your tax dollars ?
Making the initial connection on Facetime has become a massively hit and miss affair for me. When I try to call my brother in the UK, which I do every week, it used to connect pretty much instantly when Facetime first came out. Now I get a lot of instances of it "ringing" but not actually contacting him, of it saying "connecting" when he's answered, but then it looks like it's hung (the connection never completes).
I've no idea if this is related to the topic at hand, but my experience is that Facetime has become much less reliable, and I've actually switched back to using Skype.
That's ridiculous. Patent owners are not extortionists. Extortion requires a threat to do something that is not legal. The rights of a patent holder are clearly legal. Suing for patent infringement is no more extortion than Disneyland charging people to enter their park.
Frand patents occur when a company agrees to license their technology according to FRAND to get the tech community to adopt the technology as a standard. In other words, its a quid pro quo. We'll adopt it as a standard and you agree to license under FRAND.
The public doesn't get to just deem any one's patent as subject to FRAND. And it is certainly too late to enter into a FRAND arrangement after you litigate the patent.
No, I don't think Apple has a pinch to zoom patent. Touch gestures were developed way before the iPhone. Some research professors (East Coast, maybe Delaware) were working on the most advanced touch capabilities when Apple started working on the iPhone and Apple acquired their IP, but the claims are much narrower than just simple, "pinch to zoom." I think the most powerful patent Apple has on the UI is the "rubber banding" feature of scrolling. Also, they have a patent on extracting phone numbers out of text, which expires in like 2016 and predated the iPhone by more than a decade.
No I don't support patent trolling. I'm saying, Apple didn't get sued by a patent troll. You don't understand what a patent troll is. The term "patent troll" is being used as a pejorative term to describe any non-practicing entity. I think this is wrong, unfair, and harmful to the patent system. It is good for individual people to get patents on technology that Apple and other giant companies have to buy. The wealth in technology is way too concentrated in too few hands. The threat of patent litigation does two things. First it ensures that Apple must constantly be innovating and filing their own patents and buying up patents to minimize their litigation risk. Secondly, patents create an incentive to create the threat in the first place. If you want to know what happens when companies are given free reign of a market you can start by investigating countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. China used to be a horrible place to protect IP, but over the last ten years it has gotten much stronger and home grown Chinese technology is springing up.
Agreed. Nice analogy.
Why? If something is more vital, it would be more grieves to lose it, therefore worth more to keep it. Right, the more valuable something is, the more it is worth? Or did I completely miss something?