or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's FaceTime workarounds for VirnetX patent suit causing complaints, costs $2.4M per month
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's FaceTime workarounds for VirnetX patent suit causing complaints, costs $2.4M per month - Page 2

post #41 of 107
FaceTime works fine for me as well.

It looks like these guys are just trying to publicize this.
It will get them nowhere.
post #42 of 107
The problem in this day and age that many patents are not owned by their original creators but by wealthy sharks "investors" whose sole aim is to extract money . They don't create anything just hinder innovation. This is the difference between Apple V Samsung which is totally justifiable. It should be made law that patents can only be bought by businesses who have a vested interest the sharks should be told to f.... Off.
post #43 of 107
Yes, but the company sued with Apple at the same time beat the patent in a different suit.
post #44 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Ever hear of the guy that invented the intermittent windshield wipers? Should his patent be invalidated because he didn't start a car manufacturing company that would make cars with intermittent wipers? Not every patent can be implemented by it's owner. Some ideas are meant to be sold or licensed to other companies.


Do you mean Robert Kearns? What does he have to do with anything? Kearns was an actual inventor. He didn't just sit around all day thinking of vague ideas he could patent without any real conception or know how of how to make his inventions work. Kearns built a prototype intermittent wiper blade. He then took the invention to the big three to try and get licenses from them to produce his invention. Instead, all the major car companies just started using his idea without a license. He then sued Ford. Ford settled. He then sued Chrysler. It ended up paying 30 million. Cases against other car companies were dismissed because Kearns represented himself and missed court deadlines.

Virnetx bought the patent from somebody else. The patent itself is vaguely worded, and represents a method of doing something not actually built, but just drawn up on paper. Nobody approached Apple to try and sell it the idea presented in the patent. Nobody approached Apple when they first learned of Apple's alleged infringement. Instead, the troll lurked under the bridge and waited until Apple shipped a product. Chrysler only had to pay Kearn 30 million for an idea Kearn actually built and took to the companies which they then blatantly copied and is still used on every car to this day. Based on Apple's practice of buying technologies and taking licenses, it seems clear Apple did not intentional infringe this vague patent, yet it is being ordered to pay nearly ten times more then what Chrysler had to pay when Chrysler knowingly copied an invention without a license actually presented to it. If you can't see the difference between Kearn and Virnetx, there is no point of further discussion.

Keep in mind Apple was found to infringe a patent with its cover flow. It was ordered to pay 600 million. That decision on Appeal was overturned.
post #45 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

I use FaceTime at least a few hours everyday and I never had one problem for more than a year. 

 

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??

post #46 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Oh, shut up. You don't care enough to prove me wrong, don't bother posting. 

Another typical non-answer response... At least you're consistent...

post #47 of 107
never had a problem always works
post #48 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

While you are at it, force all raw land holders to develop their land or lose it.
If we dug into this, I'll bet the original patent holders tried to license or sell and the industry told them to go pound sand.
Also, who says they sat on the patent. FaceTime hasn't been around for very long and they are well into litigation, which takes years.

So you support the concept of patent trolls. Did you actually follow my link? They're sole existence is to do this. Your land analogy would be the equivalent of not a normal land owner, but one who bought tiny pieces of land simply to prevent worthwhile developments and basically held them ransom.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #49 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Do you mean Robert Kearns? What does he have to do with anything? Kearns was an actual inventor. He didn't just sit around all day thinking of vague ideas he could patent without any real conception or know how of how to make his inventions work. Kearns built a prototype intermittent wiper blade. He then took the invention to the big three to try and get licenses from them to produce his invention. .

A tiny correction. Kearns didn't approach them to license his patent. His life's dream was to sell them his own wiper assemblies he built in his own factory. Selling a license to the patent wasn't on his agenda.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Apple is quietly negotiating to buy their patents in toto.

For a service that has become core to Apple's iPhone, they won't want to be under the thumb of the IP holder and they may want to be able to leverage ownership of the IP over their competitors in the future.

It's a poker game, Apple could get this over turned so one would think they'd settle rather than risk it. After all it's the very reason they do this in the fist place. I hope it is over turned and very high damages are sought by Apple. The only way to fight back at these trolls is to make it so if they lose they pay big time. Otherwise they play a no risk game.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #51 of 107
Can't Apple just use the NSA servers as relays?
post #52 of 107
The only problem here is apple. You yanks are beyond educated on anything in relation to this case period. At least do yourself a favor and research before you actually post stupid comments. Apple has been ordered to pay close to 330,000 per day from the courts. Do you think that a judge would even penalize a company for that without reason??? The only patient troll I can think of is apple. They are theifs and got caught stealing and now they will pay. The got caught this year alone dodging taxes and e book price fixing and you apple fool yanks still defend them lmao. That is why America is so far in debt and totally uneducated the min they step off USA soil.
post #53 of 107
Quote:
Virnetx bought the patent from somebody else. The patent itself is vaguely worded, and represents a method of doing something not actually built, but just drawn up on paper. Nobody approached Apple to try and sell it the idea presented in the patent

 

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.

post #54 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

A tiny correction. Kearns didn't approach them to license his patent. His life's dream was to sell them his own wiper assemblies he built in his own factory. Selling a license to the patent wasn't on his agenda.

Either way he became a rich man.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #55 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

So you support the concept of patent trolls. Did you actually follow my link? They're sole existence is to do this. Your land analogy would be the equivalent of not a normal land owner, but one who bought tiny pieces of land simply to prevent worthwhile developments and basically held them ransom.

Wrong analogy.

What you're calling a patent troll is essentially the same as a real estate investor.

Let's say that you inherit a widget factory from your parents, but you have no desire to make widgets. Furthermore, you don't know anyone who wants to make widgets and you're not comfortable with searching for them (you don't consider yourself to be a good sales person or negotiator). A real estate investor says "I'll give you $2 M for your factory and then I'll take care of trying to find someone to rent it to make widgets" so you sell it to him.

The real estate investor has no desire to make widgets himself, but he searches for people who want to make widgets and offers to rent his factory to them. No one would find that scenario to be the least bit offensive.

Under your blind hatred of what you're calling "patent trolls", that wouldn't be allowed. If only practicing entities are allowed ownership, then anyone who wanted to move into the factory to make widgets could do so since the real estate investor is not using it. Is that really what you want?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #56 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Either way he became a rich man.

... and In and out of psychiatric facilities, lonely, divorced, few friends and even lawyers who wanted no more to do with his obsessions. Sad really.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54564-2005Feb25.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

These patent trolls need to be stopped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post

Can Apple appeal of the judgment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

It's a poker game, Apple could get this over turned so one would think they'd settle rather than risk it. After all it's the very reason they do this in the fist place. I hope it is over turned and very high damages are sought by Apple. The only way to fight back at these trolls is to make it so if they lose they pay big time. Otherwise they play a no risk game.

DO SOME RESEARCH !!!! How can this get over turned??? They have already been ordered to settle. THEY were denied a retrial. What is apple going to sue them for??? Your logic makes no sense at all period. I think your about 2 years behind in your comments. The only thing apple is waiting for is to find out the ONGOING reality rate they are going to have to pay on top of 440 million plus they own on the original judgment. Apple has already lost period. No overturning this. Fast forward 2 years to current day.
post #58 of 107
Copying an article from Ars without doing any research yourself? without even bothering to read the comments? That is, increasingly, the AI modus. Where were the assertions of complaints, other that VirnetX? Note several people in the Ars comments who actually talked with Tier 1 support, who said there actually hadn't been increased complaints. Increasingly, I find myself wondering why I still come to AI. Articles that regurgitate FossPatents and Ars. If I go there first and then come here, there's hardly anything you guys add to the discussion any more.
post #59 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

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?

post #60 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Please learn something about the patent system.

There's no 'patent troll' here. The patent was litigated and found to be valid and infringed. Given that it was valid and infringed, the patent owner has every right to demand payment - and to stop infringement until a deal can be worked out.

The trolls whining about 'patent trolls' are the ones who need to be stopped.

Didn't Apple patent pinch to zoom. Every tablet on the market now uses it. How much should Scroogle pay Apple for building it into android?
post #61 of 107

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.

post #62 of 107
Let's see, 2.4mil a month vs. 700mil requested by VirnetX. Simple math would tell you Apple could sit on the bandaid fix for 10 years and still be way in the black. Patent trolls.
post #63 of 107
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post
Another typical non-answer response... At least you're consistent...

 

So prove me wrong. Shouldn't be difficult.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #64 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

except the people who started this company are real engineers who made some real tech while at SAIC. they originally developed it for the CIA and then took the patents they invented and started their own company to license them out

 

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.

 

http://anewdomain.net/2012/11/06/who-is-virnetx-apple-must-pay-300m-plus-breaking/

 

Interesting read with lots of related links.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #65 of 107
If their patents are vital, then Frand should apply.
post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

If their patents are vital, then Frand should apply.

That isn't how FRAND works. For a company with a broad patent (which is really what every patent holder is looking for), they may choose to license it, trade it, sell it or do nothing with it, as is their right as a property holder.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #67 of 107
actually - the inventors are still part of the company VirnetX and are continuing to add new patents. I think one the original inventors though has retired. Check them out! Good company
post #68 of 107

VirnetX has a product you can buy - look at their website. The product is called Gabriel

post #69 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Actually, the vital nature would reduce the value of the royalty, per license, not raise it.

 

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).

post #70 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

except the people who started this company are real engineers who made some real tech while at SAIC. they originally developed it for the CIA and then took the patents they invented and started their own company to license them out

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 ?

post #71 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxpert View Post

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 ?
Wasn't Siri development originally paid for with tax dollars?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxpert View Post

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 ?

Depends on the terms of the financing. There are lots of different government financing programs and whether the government gains ownership rights depends on the specifics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akita Crusader View Post

Let's see, 2.4mil a month vs. 700mil requested by VirnetX. Simple math would tell you Apple could sit on the bandaid fix for 10 years and still be way in the black. Patent trolls.

Well, no. Apple will eventually be forced to pay for past violations, so they're going to pay a large amount of money PLUS any amounts going forward. So it simply becomes a matter whether VirnetX wants more or less than $2.4 M per month going forward.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #73 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

FaceTime works fine for me as well.

It looks like these guys are just trying to publicize this.
It will get them nowhere.

 

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.

post #74 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So prove me wrong. Shouldn't be difficult.

You made the assertion so it lies to you to provide proof.

Or look at it this way:

Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.

Using your logic thus far, unless you're willing to provide proof that Jobs didn't kill Kennedy, then I can just keep stating that as fact. Yes that's incredibly stupid, but that's the logic you're using.

Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.
Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.
Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.
post #75 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

Funny how blackmail is illegal but patent trolling is not. Not saying they are exactly the same but both are forms of extortion if you ask me.

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.   

post #76 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

If their patents are vital, then Frand should apply.

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.  

post #77 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosslad View Post


Didn't Apple patent pinch to zoom. Every tablet on the market now uses it. How much should Scroogle pay Apple for building it into android?

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.

post #78 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


So you support the concept of patent trolls. Did you actually follow my link? They're sole existence is to do this. Your land analogy would be the equivalent of not a normal land owner, but one who bought tiny pieces of land simply to prevent worthwhile developments and basically held them ransom.

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. 

post #79 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


You made the assertion so it lies to you to provide proof.

Or look at it this way:

Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.

Using your logic thus far, unless you're willing to provide proof that Jobs didn't kill Kennedy, then I can just keep stating that as fact. Yes that's incredibly stupid, but that's the logic you're using.

Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.
Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.
Steve Jobs killed Kennedy.

Agreed.  Nice analogy. 

post #80 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Actually, the vital nature would reduce the value of the royalty, per license, not raise it.

 

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? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's FaceTime workarounds for VirnetX patent suit causing complaints, costs $2.4M per month