Apple Now Relaying All FaceTime Calls Due To Lost Patent Dispute

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]."

Comments

uhuh sure

[Joining Yet Again]

Nothing to do with ability to intercept.

Re:uhuh sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Your thought crime has been logged.

NSA bot #43386

Re:uhuh sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Two-party communication regarding civil liberties detected. This conspiracy has been flagged for follow-up.
 
NSA bot bot #43385.

Re: uhuh sure

[Mr. Slippery]

Your mainstream press at work again...

...and so you link to the Washington Times, and completely destroy any credibility you might have had.

Two problems. One, the mainstream press did cover the story. Two, old rocket engines and old chemical weapons shells in dumps and scrapyards tell us only that Iraq used to have WMD --- never a contentious point.

The conclusion that Iraq had no WMD at the time of the American attack isn't some liberal media (ha!) conspiracy, it's the conclusion of the gorram CIA.

Bush lied, and the Fox "News" set continues to lie, about Iraq.

Re:What patent?

[girlintraining]

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?

Better question: Who cares? The patent system is so hopelessly corrupt it might as well be "Company A wants to extort money from Company B"... and so, a patent is produced, that is vaguely worded and could possibly cover something vaguely related to what Company B does. And then it's elephant mating season, with its attendant judges, teams of lawyers, reporters, etc. ...

I gave up long ago trying to keep up with the news on these things -- is the patent valid? Isn't it? What legal process will happen now? Aww fuck it. You know what; Corporations are like children. They don't play well with others and really need their ass paddled to learn some discipline. Unfortunately, Uncle is drunk off his ass ranting about the war and not watching the kids...

Re:What patent?

[teg]

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?

Following links in the article will eventually get you to an article listing the patents.

Re:The disaster of allowing software patents

[gutnor]

When you allow software algorithms to be locked away in patents

Actually that is not the biggest problem. That would be fair enough if those algorithm required years of R&D. What we are talking about here is stuff that is normal everyday problem to solving for the engineer in charge of developing the feature.

Patent are supposed to expose secrets in exchange for a temporary monopol. However, if nobody look at the patents to find those secrets and yet manage to reinvent them, what exactly is the value of those patent ? If you have a patent system where people need to search for the patent to license after they have made their product, your patent system is broken at a fundamental level.