Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Now Relaying All FaceTime Calls Due To Lost Patent Dispute

Posted by samzenpus on from the call-differently dept.

Em Adespoton writes "Before the VirnetX case, nearly all FaceTime calls were done through a system of direct communication. Essentially, Apple would verify that both parties had valid FaceTime accounts and then allow their two devices to speak directly to each other over the Internet, without any intermediary or 'relay' servers. However, a small number of calls—5 to 10 percent, according to an Apple engineer who testified at trial—were routed through 'relay servers.' At the August 15 hearing, a VirnetX lawyer stated that Apple had logged 'over half a million calls' complaining about the quality of FaceTime [since disabling direct connections]."

7 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. uhuh sure by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nothing to do with ability to intercept.

    1. Re:uhuh sure by bmo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is marked troll, but consider that Skype has been taken from a distributed system to a system with a central server farm in Redmond.

      Totally more inefficient for users (relaying makes Skype suck more), but much more efficient for TLAs.

      And considering recent events (and events over the past 20 years, really) it's common sense.

      --
      BMO

  2. What patent? by loufoque · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What is the patent involved here? Establishing a connection between two entities on an IP network? NAT traversal techniques? Usage of Interactive Connectivity Establishment protocols?

  3. Perhaps Apple can countersue by JoeyRox · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If the owner of the patent Facetime is infringing upon uses rounded corners for their office desks.

  4. Re:Lost a lawsuit? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Just ask Obama to overturn the ruling." Requesting the legislative branches not to allocate resources for enforcement is more the current administrations' style.

    To be fair, that's easier than trying to get the Legislative Branch to *actually* do something (about anything). According to Slate the 113th Congress has passed only 15 bills this year for Obama to sign while "... more than 4,000 bills have been referred to committee this year, where most will die of starvation."

    For comparison's sake, George W. Bush signed 13 bills into law on today's date alone [July 12] in 2005—with a Republican majority in both houses, mind you—but seven of those bills were sponsored by Democrats!

    Of course, we only have ourselves to blame for voting all these weasels into office...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. Re:Something I noted... by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Look at the proceedings of the Oracle x Google case about the Java patents. Oracle listed him as a paid source.

    --
    Rethinking email
  6. Re:Something I noted... by Stumbles · · Score: 3, Interesting
    He is a shill because for a very very long time he bashed many companies along with PJ over at Groklaw while PRETENDING to be "fair and balanced", etc , etc. Anyone with a modicum of comprehension skills could easily tell from his writings he was being paid, yet for the longest time he denied such a thing. In others words just to be clear: he was lying out his ass about his motivations. Then again there wasn't a single bit of his "legal" analysis that prove to be correct or true. Which no doubt is why he had a bone to pick with PJ because she would shred his analysis and to boot she was right. So no he isn't a shill because he is paid by Oracle, he is one for hiding it and then when it became clear he needed to, owned up to it.

    If you haven't seen any evidence, then you have not actually done any looking.

    Anyway, I cannot see why anyone would put any stock in anything he has to say.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.