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

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 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.
  • Reply 62 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.

  • Reply 63 of 107
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    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.

  • Reply 64 of 107
    If their patents are vital, then Frand should apply.
  • Reply 65 of 107
    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.
  • Reply 66 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
  • Reply 67 of 107


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

  • Reply 68 of 107
    focherfocher Posts: 640member

    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).

  • Reply 69 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 ?

  • Reply 70 of 107
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,577member
    sxpert wrote: »
    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?
  • Reply 71 of 107
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    sxpert wrote: »
    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.
    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.
  • Reply 72 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.

  • Reply 73 of 107
    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.
  • Reply 74 of 107
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    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.


    LOL, two thumbs up for the "trolls whining about 'patent trolls".

  • Reply 75 of 107
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    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.   

  • Reply 76 of 107
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    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.  

  • Reply 77 of 107
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    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.

  • Reply 78 of 107
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    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. 

  • Reply 79 of 107
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    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. 

  • Reply 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? 

Sign In or Register to comment.