Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Businesses Patents The Almighty Buck Apple Technology

Supreme Court Rejects Apple Appeal In Patent Fight With VirnetX (reuters.com) 35

Posted by BeauHD from the cease-and-desist dept.
New submitter John Trumpian shares a report from Reuters: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear Apple's bid to avoid paying about $440 million in damages for using patent licensing firm VirnetX's internet security technology without permission in features such as FaceTime video calling. The justices rejected Apple's appeal in the long-running case in which a federal jury in 2016 found that Apple had infringed VirnetX's patents and awarded $302 million. A judge later increased that amount to $439.7 million including interest and other costs.

The case dates back to 2010 when Nevada-based VirnetX filed suit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas accusing Cupertino, California-based Apple of infringing four patents for secure networks, known as virtual private networks, and secure communications links. VirnetX said Apple infringed with its FaceTime and VPN on Demand features in products such as the iPhone and iPad. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which specializes in patent disputes, upheld the judgment against Apple last year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Rejects Apple Appeal In Patent Fight With VirnetX More

Supreme Court Rejects Apple Appeal In Patent Fight With VirnetX

Comments Filter:
  • Welfare for lawyers. The 400 mil is a round-off error in Apple's balance sheet. Not to mention the settlement is tax deductible to Apple, although the recipient may have to pay taxes.

  • Forced Centralization (Score:4, Informative)

    by 605dave ( 722736 ) on Monday February 24, 2020 @10:02PM (#59763556) Homepage

    For those that don't know the issue was that FaceTime was designed to connected directly client to client without going through a central server, connecting directly with IP addresses. VirtnetX claims they own that method, but won't license it on reasonable terms. This means all video calls (FaceTime, Skype, etc) have to be routed through a web server. Meaning you now have a central point for surveillance. If you know anything about the origins of VirtnetX then it all becomes much clearer.

    • Crazy, the patented method is the obvious one. I've never done one, but that is exactly the approach I would take and I am no expert in phone/video calling. It never ceases to amaze me what can be patented in sw.
      • It is a curse but also a blessing. Patents also tend to bring up smart innovative work arounds and solutions. But yes they also slowdown technologies sometimes.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

          Patents also tend to bring up smart innovative work arounds and solutions.

          Like what?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by John Trumpian ( 6529466 )
            Well i give you a real life example. We have build a device that would be triggered by some sensors. 1 of the sensors is/was patented by a company in Switzerland. If we wanted to use their sensor we had to pay not only more but also could not use their sensor the way we wanted. We looked for a solution. This solution turned out the be better than the original plan. One can judge and say "The original plan sucked!" but in this case we would not have "found" the solution if the initial sensor was not patented
            • Except your example is a real physical sensor. I've no problem with patents on real things. Software almost by definition (it is an algo) should not be patentable. Copyright sure, patent no. I hear lawyers and accountants are getting in the game now too with patents on how to sue, or how to evade taxes.
              • I really so not difference here. Work is work. Yes software is easier to protect by closing its source and obscure the code but if you put 15 years of work into it you deserve to cash out in my opinion. Even a days work..

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Chozabu ( 974192 )
                  Looks like the patent is for secure direct IP communication, perhaps with a VPN... Do you really think that is original, inventive work - even back when the patent was filed?
                  On top of that, looks like the company is a patent troll who picked up the patent with the express intention of extracting cash from people who independently implement this concept. Do you really think they deserve a payout?
                  • This is how it has become. Do o think it is normal that fonts, shapes and even words can be trademarked? Patented? Nope but this it how it has developed. Especially in the US. The fear culture. The claim culture. The sue you culture. Being sued for ridiculous amounts over ridiculous claims. If one can get millions for sueing MCDonalds for hot coffee ...one can get a patent for the sole purpose to sue others. But as a developer of hard and software I tend to understand this system. I want to protect my idea

      • Done eons ago (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Tuesday February 25, 2020 @05:25AM (#59764250) Homepage

        Crazy, the patented method is the obvious one.

        In fact that's the way it used to be done eons ago, back in the era where every computer on the internet had its own public routable IPv4 address, long before the widespread of broadband DSL/Cable/Fiber and its NATed private addresses.

        H323 protocol by ITU (which basically boils down to "ISDN, but over TCP/IP") works by directy conneting the nodes.
        This was released in 1996, that's 24 years ago.

        This protocol was extensively used to video conferencing software and hardware (such as Microsoft Netmeeting/Micosoft Lync, Gnomemeeting/Ekiga, etc.)

        SIP, the competing standard (but by IETF thus with internet roots instead of telecom), also connects the nodes directly to each other.
        This was released almost at the same time, in 1999, 21 one years ago.

        It's also used very widely in software (Microsoft Lync/Microsoft Skype for Business, Gnomemeeting/Ekiga, Pidgin and Ekiga, etc.) and hardware (most modern VoIP solutions, including your home telephony if you're getting your internet from Cable or Fiber).

        In its simplest implementation, WebRTC also does direct connection between the nodes (but nearly all the time in practice ends up connecting to a bounce node in the middle with a public facing IP).

        In fact, the whole popularity of Skype (the original one, not the in-the-name-only "for Business" one) started *because* both H323 and SIP were primarily direct connection, and internet spearding to a larger population caused more computers to be behind firewall/routers that use NAT and private addresses.
        For companies and universities with large and competent IT department it's not that complicated to implement open ports, to setup relays / proxies, etc.
        But that's beyond Joe Sixpack's competency and thus he can't trivially use NetMeeting to call his nephews from home, opening the market for a new comer.

        Skype was built by recycling and expanding upon the FastTrack protocole used in Kazaa (the dev's previous creation), because Peer-2-peer has been running through the exact same problems between Napster and Kazaa than between H323 or SIP and Skype.
        Kazaa and the protocole upon which Skype was built was released in 2001, 19 years ago.

        I'm genuinely surprised that in 2020, there's a patent troll that has patent pertaining to communication in their portfiolo that are still valid and not considered having prior art.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          I believe the lawsuit was filed a decade ago, so they may have had standing then. Allowing lawyers, who tend to think AOL is the height of technology, to rule on the viability of technology patents has always seemed stupid to me though.

          • I believe the lawsuit was filed a decade ago,

            By which point, the 1992 CU-SeeMe [wikipedia.org] was probably 2 decade old.
            It supported both direct point-to-point connection for 2 people,
            or connection to a bounce server for multiple people (the way most of the nowaday "busting around restrictive firewalls" communication is done).

            I'm sure even back then it would have been considered obvious.

    • Re:Forced Centralization (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NoMoreACs ( 6161580 ) on Tuesday February 25, 2020 @02:12AM (#59763960)

      If you know anything about the origins of VirtnetX then it all becomes much clearer.

      You mean that VirnetX is a shell-corporation owned by SAIC, a Defense Contractor that has a Board simply chock-full of ex(?) CIA?

      You mean that VirnetX?

    • I read in their patent, which is a nightmare to read anyway. Does this mean they also could use ssh and telnet or do they fall under "server controlled" programs. What about direct lan links and laplink? And all other software that use direct link possibilities?
    • Apple deserves it all the way.

      It could have used SIP and SIP re-INVITE and/or other NAT traversal methods which predate the patent by 5+ years.

      It has decided to be Apple instead and got shafted.

      The lesson is clear - do not be an Apple, if there is a existing standard, adhere to it. Anything else aside, the big companies which contributed to it have done at least some patent landscape investigation before agreeing on it.

  • They really are. These patent is basically for encrypting stuff. Thatâ(TM)s it. Then someone uses it for some network stuff and claims itâ(TM)s an amazing invention.
  • I guess Apple forgot to build an ice skating ring in Texas to avoid this lawsuit. https://youtu.be/3bxcc3SM_KA?t... [youtu.be]
  • SW patents are just blatantly unethical. Further still, all code of any significant public impact should be transparently available (i.e. open source)

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close