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

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 107
    zabazaba Posts: 226member
    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.
  • Reply 42 of 107
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Yes, but the company sued with Apple at the same time beat the patent in a different suit.
  • Reply 43 of 107
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 44 of 107
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,107member

    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??

  • Reply 45 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...

  • Reply 46 of 107
    never had a problem always works
  • Reply 47 of 107
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,998member
    ash471 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 48 of 107
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,023member
    tbell wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 49 of 107
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,998member
    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.
  • Reply 50 of 107
    Can't Apple just use the NSA servers as relays?
  • Reply 51 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.
  • Reply 52 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.

  • Reply 53 of 107
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,973member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 54 of 107
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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?
  • Reply 55 of 107
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,023member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    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
  • Reply 56 of 107
    scotty321 wrote: »
    These patent trolls need to be stopped.

    ealvarez wrote: »
    Can Apple appeal of the judgment?

    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.
  • Reply 57 of 107
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    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.
  • Reply 58 of 107
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member

    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?

  • Reply 59 of 107
    crossladcrosslad Posts: 484member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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?
  • Reply 60 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.

Sign In or Register to comment.