Apple's FaceTime workarounds for VirnetX patent suit causing complaints, costs $2.4M per month
Modifications Apple has made to its FaceTime video calling service due to a lost patent lawsuit are reportedly causing complaints from customers, as well as a hefty $2.4 million per month fee for relay server costs.
Along with the $368 million Apple was ordered to pay software maker VirnetX for infringing on a VPN patent with FaceTime, the Cupertino company's workarounds are reportedly causing problems with the voice calling service, according to ArsTechnica.
In November of 2012, Apple lost a patent suit leveraged by VirnetX regarding its use of a certain virtual private network property in FaceTime, which is offered as a standard iOS app that ships with all iPhone, iPad and iPod touch devices.
Both companies are hashing out possible royalty payments and licensing issues, though not much has been reported on the proceedings as most relevant court documents are sealed. Instead, the publication spoke to a VirnetX investor named Jeff Lease who attended a recent royalty hearing earlier in August.
It should be noted that Lease is not a legal expert and has a vested interest in VirnetX, meaning his view of the facts may inadvertently be colored. Lease's statements are based on his notes which were taken at at the jury trial and post-trial hearings.
According to Lease, prior to the VirnetX case, a large percentage of FaceTime calls were facilitated through direct connections, with only 5 to 10 percent offloaded to relay servers. Because the VirnetX patent deals mainly with VPN connections, Apple began to route all FaceTime traffic through these relay servers to avoid paying ongoing licensing fees to the software company.
With the switch, Apple is now reportedly shelling out $2.4 million per month to the Internet content distribution companies that handle the routed calls. In addition, Apple reportedly fielded over 500,000 complaints since making the backend changes, thought to have gone live in April. The exact nature of the complaints was not revealed.
The new evidence, if true, could bolster VirnetX's assertions that its patents are vital to the communications industry and are therefore worth higher royalty rates. Specific numbers were not discussed at the August hearing, but Lease said VirnetX is looking for payments of over $700 million for FaceTime.
The judge overseeing the case has yet to make a decision regarding Apple's workarounds and what the company should or should not payout in royalties.
Along with the $368 million Apple was ordered to pay software maker VirnetX for infringing on a VPN patent with FaceTime, the Cupertino company's workarounds are reportedly causing problems with the voice calling service, according to ArsTechnica.
In November of 2012, Apple lost a patent suit leveraged by VirnetX regarding its use of a certain virtual private network property in FaceTime, which is offered as a standard iOS app that ships with all iPhone, iPad and iPod touch devices.
Both companies are hashing out possible royalty payments and licensing issues, though not much has been reported on the proceedings as most relevant court documents are sealed. Instead, the publication spoke to a VirnetX investor named Jeff Lease who attended a recent royalty hearing earlier in August.
It should be noted that Lease is not a legal expert and has a vested interest in VirnetX, meaning his view of the facts may inadvertently be colored. Lease's statements are based on his notes which were taken at at the jury trial and post-trial hearings.
According to Lease, prior to the VirnetX case, a large percentage of FaceTime calls were facilitated through direct connections, with only 5 to 10 percent offloaded to relay servers. Because the VirnetX patent deals mainly with VPN connections, Apple began to route all FaceTime traffic through these relay servers to avoid paying ongoing licensing fees to the software company.
With the switch, Apple is now reportedly shelling out $2.4 million per month to the Internet content distribution companies that handle the routed calls. In addition, Apple reportedly fielded over 500,000 complaints since making the backend changes, thought to have gone live in April. The exact nature of the complaints was not revealed.
The new evidence, if true, could bolster VirnetX's assertions that its patents are vital to the communications industry and are therefore worth higher royalty rates. Specific numbers were not discussed at the August hearing, but Lease said VirnetX is looking for payments of over $700 million for FaceTime.
The judge overseeing the case has yet to make a decision regarding Apple's workarounds and what the company should or should not payout in royalties.
Comments
Quote:
The new evidence, if true, could bolster VirnetX's assertions that its patents are vital to the communications industry and are therefore worth higher royalty rates. Specific numbers were not discussed at the August hearing, but Lease said VirnetX is looking for payments of over $700 million for FaceTime.
Actually, the vital nature would reduce the value of the royalty, per license, not raise it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirnetX
Apple needs to pay the piper just like Scamsung should be paying Apple. The relay servers appear to be a workaround but is it really worth it? Maybe Apple should just buy throw a billion dollars at them and buy them out.
Yeah, it's causing complaints. The first complaint is that this company wasn't disbanded after losing the trial, because Apple did nothing wrong.
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.
Care to back up that claim that Apple did nothing wrong with a set of facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts....
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Care to back up that claim that Apple did nothing wrong with a set of facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts....
I imagine all the original threads about this crap suit cover that nicely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I imagine all the original threads about this crap suit cover that nicely.
Beep, beep, beep... The sound of you obfuscating and backing up.... Never mind... You can go back to sleep.
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Beep, beep, beep... The sound of you obfuscating and backing up.... Never mind... You can go back to sleep.
Oh, shut up. You don't care enough to prove me wrong, don't bother posting.
But.....
Virnet X has filed another Apple lawsuit against newer iDevices and using the same patent claims again.
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.
If Tim wants to the livingroom for Apple tv, pay the royalty and settle. Virnetx owns the patents. Five companies have already settled. Tim be the gentleman with ethics and do the right thing for your customers and redeem the Apple experience.
This case is no troll. The patent is clearly valid, clearly infringed, and Apple should clearly pay the patent owners fair value.
Don't be two faced. When Apple sued Samsung we all cheered their win because it was just. Now that Apple is on the other side doesn't mean we should cheer for the innovator to get screwed.
Originally Posted by ash471
If they infringe the patent than they owe damages. It doesn't matter if they did it innocently; if they infringe, they are infringers.
My implication would be that they didn't infringe, not that infringement should go unpunished.