Patent Suit Leads To 500,000 Annoyed Software Users

ciaran_o_riordan writes "A rare glimpse at the human harm of a software patent lawsuit: company receives 500,000 calls complaining about video quality after a video call system was forced to change to avoid a patent. That's a lot of people having a bad day. We don't usually hear these details because the court documents get ordered sealed and the lawyers only say what the companys' communication strategists allow. However, for VirnetX v. Apple, Jeff Lease decided to go the hearings, take notes, and give them to a journalist. While most coverage is focussing on the fines involved, doubling or halving Apple's fine would have a much smaller impact on your day than the removal of a feature from some software you like. Instead of letting the software patents debate be reduced to calls for sympathy for big companies getting fined, what other evidence is out there, like this story, for harm caused directly to software users?"

Comments

My give-a-darn meter is reading negative GADs

[symbolset]

I am not going to cry for Apple over software patents. Software patents are a crime against humanity but they are in that fight using them to commit their own atrocities. There is nobody to root for in this fight. A pox on both their houses. Nice /. banner ad though.

Re:My give-a-darn meter is reading negative GADs

[Technician]

Apple has run a Walled garden protected by patents for a long time. Maybe it is time for them to simply switch to an open standard supported by many parties such as SIP. If apple adopted open standards, they could interface with Jitsi users, Linksys/Supra users, Grandstream users, Asterisk PBX users, etc.

The reason they don't do this is because you are not locked to a carrier and can use ViaTalk, Ekiga, IPPI,Ring Central, or other providers. Same reason they don't offer unlocked phones.

Re:My give-a-darn meter is reading negative GADs

[Anonymous Coward]

What company has Samsung sued where the company hasn't sue them first?

Re:Tough, Apple

[PPH]

None of this would have happened if IPv6 had been deployed by now,

The patent trolls would just refile all the existing stuff as 'do X in IPv6'. And the USPTO would grant the patents, resetting the term to start at the new filing date.

Patents are supposed to be non obvious. Unless someone can show where Apple had tried (and failed) to implement the protocol in question until VirnetX published. And suddenly Apple succeeded. Then I'd buy the argument that Apple swiped their idea. But if Apple sat down on its own and built the same damned thing, I'd say the solution is a)obvious and b)trivial. Add any third parties coming up with the same thing and I'd say there's no way it is patentable.

'Hard to work around' doesn't mean something is patentable. The wheel is pretty hard to work around as well.

Eh?

[0123456]

Inconveniencing folks so they can't use technology until they give you money is the whole point of patents.